Volume XLI Number 1.pdf - The International Association of Forensic ...

TIAFT World - ST. MAry’S CAThedrAl Tokyo, JAPAN - (Tōkyō kATedorAru SeI MArIA dAISeIdō)
TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
TIAFT BULLETIN
In this edition:
CENTRAL STIMULANT
AMINES
------perspectives
perspectives
perspectives
perspectives
perspectives
perspectives in in in drug drug drug
discovery
discovery
discovery
discovery
discovery
discovery
discovery
discovery
discovery
by by by by by by Wayne WW
ayne ayne Jones JJ
ones ones
LIQUID
CHROMATOGRAPHY
TANDEM MASS
SPECTROMETRY
IN FORENSIC
TOXICOLOGY: WHAT
ABOUT MATRIX
EFFECTS?
by by by by by by rrruth uth uth vvverplaetse
erplaetse
erplaetse & & & Jan JJ
an an
ttttttytgat ytgat ytgat
INTERNET BASED
COMPUTER
PROCESSING
OF THIN-LAYER
CHROMATOGRAPHY
DATA IN SYSTEMATIC
TOXICOLOGICAL
ANALYSIS
by by by by by by rrrafael afael afael lllinden inden inden & & &
eeeeeestefânio
stefânio
stefânio Kellermann
KK
ellermann
ellermann
CANNABIMIMETICS:
MASS SPECTRA AND IR-
ATR SPECTRA OF NEW
COMPOUNDS FROM
THE YEARS 2009 AND
2010
by by by by by by ssstefan tefan tefan Kneisel KK
neisel neisel
ThE INTErNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FOrENSIC TOxICOLOGISTS
Volume 41
Number 1, 2011
Page 1
Inside: 2010 SOFT Meeting from Virginia, USA; SFTA Chamonix Meeting 2011; Updated YSC Award Guidelines
BULLETIN PrICE $25USD ISSN 1080-9945

TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
If you’re looking for clearly better MS results, be sure to look
at Agilent. With a 37-year track record of innovation and the
industry’s largest installed base, Agilent’s best-in-class portfolio
of MS technologies delivers everything you expect from a mass
spec leader: Superior analytical performance to enhance your
results, and your confidence. 24/7 Agilent reliability to maximize
your lab’s uptime and productivity. Intelligent, easy-to-use
software to help every user get excellent results, every time.
And end-to-end MS workflow solutions that help you generate
better results, faster than ever.
© Agilent Technologies, Inc. 2009
Our measure is your success.
Page 2
products | applications | software | services
LC/MS, GC/MS, ICP-MS and MassHunter Software
With the full spectrum of MS solutions, Agilent can
exactly match your lab’s analytical needs and budget.
www.agilent.com/chem

TIAFT BULLETIN
Official publication of the International Association
of Forensic Toxicologists (TIAFT) www.tiaft.org
CURRENT TIAFT PRESIDENT:
Olaf H. Drummer PhD, BAppSc
TIAFT PRESIDENT ELECT:
Alain G. Verstraete, MD
TIAFT PAST PRESIDENT
Pascal Kintz, PhD
TIAFT SECRETARY
Chung, Hee-Sun, Ph.D.
TIAFT TREASURER
Daniel S. Isenschmid, PhD, DABFT
TIAFT BOARD MEMBERS
Marc Lebeau, PhD
Univ.-Professor Dr. Dr. h.c. Hans H. Maurer
Anya Pierce B.Sc, Dip. Med Tox, MBA
TIAFT COMMITTEES
Web Committee
Chair: Gianpaolo Brusini
Members: Alain G. Verstraete•Dimitri
Gerostamoulos•Jochen Beyer
Systematic toxicology analysis (STA) committee
Chair: Thomas Stimpfl
Members: Merja Gergov•Marc
Lebeau•Klaus Müller•Aldo Polettini,
Frank Sporkert•Wolfgang Weinmann
Therapeutic and toxic drug concentrations
Chair: Donald Uges
Member: Anni Steentoft
Young Scientist Committee (YSC)
Chair: Frank Peters
Secretary: Madeline Montgomery
Members: Federica Bortolotti•Simon
Elliott•Sooyeun Lee•Helena
Teixeira•Jochen Beyer•Sarah Wille
Bulletin Editors:
Dimitri Gerostamoulos•Jochen Beyer
This bulletin is published by GI Printing & Graphics Pty
Ltd, 44 Regent Street Oakleigh VIC, 3166, AUSTRALIA.
The International Association of Forensic Toxicologists
TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
TIAFT Bulletin Editors Comment
Dear Colleagues, we are pleased to bring you another edition of
the Bulletin with many feature articles and updates. Of recent times
mother nature has been quite upset at us in areas all over the world -as
such our Bulletin cover is dedicated to the people of Japan and our
colleagues who suffered enourmous loss of life and ongoing hardship.
Our thoughts are with our friends and we hope Japan recovers quickly
from the recent set of disasters.
There are many toxicology meetings held around the world annually.
2011 is shaping up a busy year with GIFT, SFTA, IATDMCT and of course
our combined meeting with our SOFT colleagues in late September.
Abstract submission closes shortly for SOFT/TIAFT 2011, so dont miss out!
This edition features key articles from Rafael Linden, Ruth Verplaetse
and Thomas Kneisel. The inimitable Wayne Jones again has provided
another informative article on Central Stimulant Amines. As mentioned
in the last bulletin we would like to encourage our toxicology PhD
candidates to submit small reviews on their topics of research as these
are often central to their research themes and gives our TIAFT members
around the globe an insight into research being conducted into
toxicology phenomena.
As always we encourage you to send comments and suggestions to our
dedicated Bulletin e-mail address below, many thanks to our sponsors
who assist us to produce the bulletin.
Safe travels to all
Jochen Beyer & Dimitri Gerostamoulos
Contact us at tiaftbulletin@gmail.com
TIAFT was founded in London April 21, 1963. The founding meeting elected Dr. E.C.G. Clarke (UK) as President, Dr. Alan S. Curry (UK) as
Secretary, Dr. Ian Holden (UK) as Treasurer and Dr. Fred Rieders (USA) as Newsletter Editor. The first newsletter was edited in November
1963 by Rieders, and from the very beginning it bore the name "Bulletin of the International Association of Forensic Toxicologists". It
was a 3-page A4 size blue spirit duplicated leaflet which contained four case notes. The analytical methods relied much on TLC,
spectrophotometry and spot tests. The first note was by L.W. Bradford (USA) giving advice on how to calibrate UV spectro-photometers
with mercury vapour.
Nowadays TIAFT groups over 1400 members from all regions of the world who are actively engaged in analytical toxicology or allied
areas with the aims of this association are to promote cooperation and coordination of efforts among members and to encourage
research in forensic toxicology. TIAFT members come from the police force, medical examiners and coroners' laboratories, horse racing
and sports doping laboratories, hospitals, departments of legal medicine, pharmacology, pharmacy and toxicology.
Page 3

TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
There are Substances in the Argument for Superior,
Cost Effective LC/MS/MS for Forensic Toxicology.
Making the Case for Cost Effective LC/MS/MS for Forensic Toxicology.
Achieving cost efficiency with superior LC/MS/MS solutions for forensic toxicology is no longer wishful thinking; it’s an established
fact. AB SCIEX, the leader in LC/MS/MS technology, delivers high performing LC/MS/MS solutions and helps achieve a high return on
investment to meet the unique needs of forensic labs. Realize significant savings with dramatic reductions in sample preparation, lower
detection limits, less re-analysis, and shorter run times. Helps labs attain superior results and a higher degree of confidence with
utilization of retention times, ion ratios, library searchable spectra, and exceptional sensitivity, backed by the most dedicated support
team in the industry.
See conclusive evidence of cost effective LC/MS/MS technology and find out how to identify, confirm, and quantitate hundreds of
drugs in a single run at www.absciex.com/forensic_toxicology
For Research Use Only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures.
© 2010 AB SCIEX. The trademarks mentioned herein are the property of AB Sciex Pte. Ltd. or their respective owners. AB SCIEX is being used under license.
Page 4

TIAFT BULLETIN
Volume 41, Number 1
2011
Contents
7
President’s Message
Olaf’s update for this edition
8
Liquid Chromatography
Tandem Mass Spectrometry
In Forensic Toxicology: What
About Matrix Effects?
by ruth Verplaetse & Jan
Tytgat
17
Perspectives in Drug
Discovery
5. Central Amine Stimulants
This is the fifth article from
Wayne Jones continuing his
excellent series of articles
for our members
20
19e Congrès de la Société
Française de Toxicologie
Analytique (SFTA)
report from the Joint
Symposium of SFTA, So SohT,
IATDMCT and TIAFT
24
Detection of Drugs of Abuse
in Emergency hospital,
Mansoura University, Egypt
A first time article from our
Egyptian colleagues Abd
el-Aziz Ghanem and raafat
Mandour
28
Guidelines for Young
Scientists Committee
Awards
read the updated
Guidelines, important for all
Young Scientists planning to
submit their work.
30
Internet Based Computer
Processing of Thinlayer
Chromatography Data in
Systematic Toxicological
Analysis
by rafael Linden and
Estefanio Kellermann
37
Meeting of the Society of
Forensic Toxicologist in
richmond Virginia
report from the 2010
Symposium of SOFT
38
Cannabimimetics: Mass
Spectra and Ir-ATr Spectra
of New Compounds from
the Years 2009 and 2010
by Stefan Kneisel, Folker
Westphal, Volker Brecht,
Andreas Ewald, Birgit Klein,
Michael Puetz, Simone
Thiemt & Volker Auwaerter
51
SOFT TIAFT 2011
Update of the upcoming
annual TIAFT meeting
TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
58
2011 TIAFT Developing
Countries Fund (dCF)
Contributors
thank you to these members
59
regional representatives-
Updated List from the Board
Meeting in Croatia
63
TIAFT Bulletin Article
Submission Guidelines
Please use these guidelines
when submitting articles to
the Bulletin
Page 5

TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
© 2010 Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. All rights reserved. All trademarks are the property of Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.
and its subsidiaries. Copyrights in and to the photograph are owned by a third party and licensed for limited use only
to Thermo Fisher Scientific by iStockphoto.
Page 6
Innovative solutions for your testing requirements.
The Thermo Scientific CEDIA and DRI Enzyme Immunoassay
product lines offer a comprehensive range of Drugs of Abuse
tests, including several unique assays, for your changing drug
screening needs.
Optimised for a wide range of clinical chemistry analysers, our
diagnostic solutions are proving their superior performance in
hospital, commercial, government and reference laboratories
worldwide.
For more information, please contact us at www.thermoscientific.com.
Moving science forward

President’s Message
Dear Members,
A few days ago on behalf of all members I extended
our deepest sympathies to Professor Osamu Suzuki,
the president of the Japanese Association of Forensic
Toxicology and representative of the Japanese forensic
toxicologists, on the enormous disaster that has occurred
in Japan from the Earthquake and Tsunami. I am sure all of
us are most upset over the enormous loss of life and hope
that all of the current consequences of the Tsunami do not
get worse. This comes 2 weeks after the earthquake that
almost destroyed Christchurch, the second largest city in
New Zealand, and also killed many people.
On a more pleasant note you will hopefully have seen
the significant improvements made to the TIAFT website
by Gianpaolo Brusini and others on the web committee. I
hope all of you are using it to its most optimum. Currently
Dimitri Gerostamoulos and Jochen Beyer are scanning old
Bulletins to be loaded onto the web site with improved
search functionality. This should be completed later this
year, although there may be still some missing volumes.
Kneale Kimber (a past treasurer from the UK) has kindly
agreed to send his old editions to Dimitri and Jochen to
scan. If anyone else has old copies please contact them in
case they are missing from their collection.
The board will meet in a little over a week in Zagreb to hold
its annual board meeting. It will also hold a symposium
with invitees from the neighbouring countries including
the Balkans. Dr Miran Coklo is organising these events and
we thank him greatly for agreeing to do this and help to
increase the TIAFT presence in this region.
A reminder to register (and send in abstracts) for the
combined SOFT/TIAFT meeting in San Francisco. See
the web site for details. The preliminary program is quite
extensive with a number of workshops preceding the
meeting.
Also a reminder for those members from developing
Dear Colleagues,
As you know, there were 2 special journal editions compiled
from last year’s TIAFT meeting in Bonn. The papers submitted
to the special volume of ABC have been published and
those submitted to FSI will soon be ready for publication.
Additionally, we have received 11 manuscripts to be
published in the meeting proceedings. We announced
to produce a CD, however following approval from the
TIAFT Board which recently met in Croatia, we decided to
publish these proceedings in a special online edition of the
TIAFT Bulletin. Thus, they would be citable, available online
with links to the TIAFT, GTFCH, and the congress webpage.
Small excerpts of these publications would be available in
the next published TIAFT Bulletin which Jochen and Dimitri
will produce in due course.
Thanks to everyone for contributing, all the best,
Hans H. Maurer and Frank Musshoff
TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
countries to submit requests for
travel scholarships. Details are
available on the web site. We will
have more scholarships available
this year due to the kind donation
from the Bonn organisers and to
NIDA (Dr Marilyn Huestis).
Shortly there will also be toxicology
meetings in Chamonix (SFTA/
SOHTcombined meeting with a
one-day combined meeting with
TIAFT) (week of March 21) and the
Group of Italian toxicologists (GiFT)
in Desenzano, italy (April 1-3).
I will be present for the TIAFT day in Chamonix (courtesy
of the SFTA and SOHT organisers) and will also attend the
Desenzano meeting (courtesy of Dr Aldo Polettini). I hope
to see many of you there.
Best wishes
OLAF H. Drummer
TIAFT PRESIDENT
Olaf Drummer
TIAFT President
Enjoy the Bulletin. Best regards.
Olaf H. Drummer PhD(Med) ARCPA MRACI CChem
TIAFT President
Head (Forensic & Scientific Services
Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Adjunct
Professor,Department of Forensic Medicine,
School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine
Monash University, 57-83 Kavanagh Street,
Southbank, 3006, AUSTRALIA
E-mail: olaf@vifm.org
Page 7

TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
Page 8
Liquid chromatography
tandem mass
spectrometry in forensic
toxicology: what about
matrix effects?
Ruth Verplaetse and Jan Tytgat
Laboratory of Toxicology, KULeuven, Campus Gasthuisberg
O&N 2, PO Box 922, Herestraat 49, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
Tel.: +32 16 323411. Fax: +32 16 323405.
E-mail: ruth.verplaetse@pharm.kuleuven.be
Abstract
Liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass
spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) is more and more used in forensic
toxicology. This is a highly selective and sensitive technique,
but can be negatively affected by matrix effects i.e. the
influence of co-eluting compounds on the analyte of
interest. The complex composition of forensic samples
forces the researcher who is using LC-MS/MS to be aware
of matrix effects, evaluate these and, if possible, eliminate
these. Therefore, this review discusses the nature of forensic
samples and how matrix effects can be evaluated and
avoided when analyzing such samples with LC-MS/MS.
Moreover, a brief overview of sample preparation and
the working mechanisms of LC-MS/MS and matrix effects
is given.
1. Introduction
Forensic toxicology uses multiple analytical techniques
to determine the presence of xenobiotic components.
Screening tests like immunoassays can establish whether
there are psychotropic substances present in a sample or
not and can eventually provide semi-quantitative values.
Confirmatory testing can identify and quantify the specific
component. High performance liquid chromatography
with ultraviolet detection (HPLC-UV) and especially
gas chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry
(GC-MS) are widely used for confirmation. LC-MS/MS is
being advocated to become the golden standard for
both screening and confirmation tests (1). The greatest
disadvantage of this technique however is the effect of
co-eluting molecules on ionization of the target analyte
resulting in ion suppression or ion enhancement, so called
matrix effects (1). Therefore, despite the high selectivity
of MS, sample preparation and chromatography can
not completely be eliminated when using LC-MS/MS.
Moreover, studies of matrix effects should be included in
LC-MS/MS method validation. Although different strategies
to overcome matrix effects have already been published,
the purpose of this review is to evaluate the use of LC-MS/
MS in a forensic toxicology context by trying to answer
following questions: Which type of samples is analysed?;
Do such samples need to be treated specifically?; Are
there LC-MS/MS prerequisites?; How can matrix effects be
evaluated and avoided?
2. Forensic samples
Forensic samples include ante- and post-mortem samples
with a heavily variable composition. 1) Different matrices
are available. Commonly urine and whole blood are
used; alternative matrices are liver, bile, hair, nails, gastric
content, vitreous humor, sweat, saliva, brain, bone, fat,
muscle or even maggots (2,3). Every matrix has its own
characteristics (e.g. pH, typical compounds, …) causing
differences between the matrices. An interesting example
is the protein content of blood and urine. Whole blood has
a high protein fraction responsible for the high viscosity
of blood. In urine, the protein fraction is much smaller,
ruling out proteins as main interfering compounds. Such
differences in composition between matrices apply for
other compounds such as sugars and lipids. Moreover, the
same matrix from different sources can also greatly vary in
composition (4). 2) Both ante- and post-mortem samples
may contain a variety of drugs and their metabolites in a
wide concentration range. a) Ante-mortem factors that
cause variation are the type of drugs used, the administered
dose and the victim’s metabolism. For chronic users who
developed tolerance, toxic doses are known to be higher
than for naive users. b) Special attention should be paid to
post-mortem samples: the time interval between exposure
to a drug and death, post-mortem processes and the time
interval between death and sampling can vary causing
altered drug concentrations in biological samples. The postmortem
processes include degradation of compounds
because of chemical instability or metabolic changes (by
both endogenous and bacterial enzymes), redistribution
and the appearance of decomposition products (2,3,5).
Post-mortem redistribution refers to changed drug
concentrations as a result of diffusion of drugs from higher to
lower concentrations after cell death. It is an unpredictable
phenomenon, but lipophilic and basic drugs tend to be
more vulnerable to undergo post-mortem redistribution
(2,3,5). Peripheral blood suffers the least from changes in
concentrations and should be used instead of heart blood
(2,5). Clearly, an unequivocal ‘standard matrix’ does not
exist and forensic samples can be dirty i.e. of complex
composition, containing multiple components which
possibly disturb analysis. Therefore toxicological analysis
should be adapted to the specimens of interest, in order
to avoid negative influence of the sample composition on
analytical results. In addition special care should be given
to the complicated interpretation of concentrations of
drugs found in forensic samples, especially in post-mortem
samples.

3. Sample preparation
Sample preparation techniques can be used to remove
unwanted compounds and/or to concentrate the analyte.
Considering the often dirty samples in forensic toxicology,
good sample preparation is essential (1,6). Four major
techniques are briefly discussed here: sample dilution,
protein precipitation, liquid-liquid extraction (LLE) and solid
phase extraction (SPE). When using sample dilution (or so
called dilute-and-shoot technique), the sample is diluted
with an appropriate solvent and directly injected into
LC-MS/MS. Protein precipitation is performed by adding
an organic solvent, an acid, a metal ion or a salt to the
sample which causes disruption of the protein-drug binding
and preciptation of unwanted materials (7,8). Protein
precipitation with organic solvents such as acetonitrile
and methanol is most common in LC-MS/MS, since acids
may be detrimental for the analyte’s stability and involatile
salts are not compatible with LC-MS/MS (7). After mixing
and centrifuging, the supernatant is injected into LC-MS/
MS. Sample dilution and protein precipitation are two
very simple and inexpensive techniques but they result in
rather dirty extracts without enrichment (1). For LLE, the pH
of a sample is adjusted and analytes are extracted into a
suitable organic solvent (1). A back-extraction can further
enhance the selectivity. Disadvantages are the use of
large volumes of environmentally unfriendly solvents and
possible incomplete phase separations resulting in the loss
of analytes or dirty extracts (1,6). SPE uses a disposable
column containing a stationary phase (e.g. C18, C8, cation
exchangers, anion exchangers, …) that can bind the
analytes of interest with a certain selectivity (6). A typical
SPE procedure consists of four consecutive steps: column
conditioning, sample loading, column washing and elution.
SPE is a selective technique, but the used SPE cartridges are
expensive and blockage of the of the columns should be
avoided (9).
H
TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
4. LC-MS/MS
Research on the combination of LC and MS started
around 1970 and still continues today. Two Nobel prices
(Paul, 1989 and Fenn, 2002) and an increasing number of
publications involving LC-MS/MS indicate the importance
of this analytical technique, not only in forensic toxicology
but also in several other scientific fields.
4.1. Chromatography
In LC-MS, reversed phase chromatography is most popular.
In this separation mode, the column has a non-polar
bonded phase (e.g. C18) and the mobile phase uses polar
organic solvents mixed with water (10). Throughout history of
LC, particle size of the columns has been decreasing: from
10 µm in the 1970s to the 3 µm range in the 1990s and sub-
2 µm nowadays while the instrument’s maximum pressure
has been increasing (11). The technology using sub-2 µm
particles is called ultrafast LC (UFLC), ultra performance
LC (UPLC), ultra high performance LC (UHPLC) or rapid
resolution LC (RRLC), depending on the manufacturer. The
reason for this evolution can be explained using the Van
Deemter equation, a formula that expresses the efficiency
of separation:
B
H = A + + C.
µ
µ
Where H is the height equivalent to a theoretical plate, A
is the Eddy diffusion, B is the longitudinal diffusion, C is the
mass transfer and µ is the linear velocity of the mobile phase
(i.e. the flow rate divided by the cross-sectional area of the
column). H is a theoretical value to reflect the separation
power of a column: a low H value represents an efficient
separation. Decreasing particle size lowers the A term since
less different paths between the particles can be taken
by the analytes and lowers the C term since the diffusion
path of the analytes in and out the particles is smaller. The
Linear velocity, µ
10 µm
5 µm
3 µm
sub-2 µm
Figure 1: Van Deemter plot comparing columns with different particle
sizes. Lower H indicates higher efficiency and sensitivity.
Page 9

TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
result is a separation with improved efficiency (lower H)
and thus improved sensitivity (fig. 1) (11,12). As particle
size decreases, the pressure generated in the LC-system
increases (up to 1000 bar) (12). Therefore, specialized UFLC
hardware that can cope with these high backpressures is
necessary because the maximum pressure of a classical
HPLC is limited to ~300 bar (12). Since UFLC instrumentation
and consumables have a higher cost than conventional
HPLC, an interesting alternative might be the use of fusedcore
technology (12). This technology uses the same
principles as UFLC (shorter diffusion path which lowers
C-term of the Van Deemter curve and better packing
which lowers the A-term of the Van Deemter curve) not by
using smaller porous particles as in UFLC, but by reducing
the porous part of the particle (12-14). As a result, these
sub-3 µm columns can have almost the same efficiency as
sub-2 µm columns without the high backpressures, making
this technology suitable for classical HPLC systems (12-14).
4.2. Mass spectrometry
Three processes take place in the MS: ionization (in the
ionization interface or source), ion separation (in the mass
analyser) and ion detection. For ionization, two atmospheric
pressure sources are very popular: electrospray ionization
(ESI) and atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI).
They operate through a different mechanism making them
suited for analysis of different types of molecules (fig. 2) (1).
Page 10
Molecular weight
APCI
ESI
In figure 3 the working mechanisms of ESI and APCI are
schematically illustrated (1,15,16). In ESI, ionization is
believed to take place in the liquid phase (15). By applying
a strong electrical field, the liquid at the tip of the capillary
forms a cone, the so called ‘Taylor cone’ (15). The solvent
evaporates, creating a fine liquid spray of highly charged
droplets. The size of the droplets decreases until the
repulsive forces between charges exceed the droplet’s
surface tension, i.e. the ‘Rayleigh limit’ is reached and the
droplet explodes into smaller droplets in a ‘Coulombic
fission’ (15,16). There are two models describing the further
process by which gas phase ions originate from the small
droplets (16). The charge residue model states that the
process of exploding droplets is repeated until a droplet
contains only a single analyte. A gas phase ion forms when
the solvent from this last droplet evaporates. According
to the alternative theory, the ion evaporation model, the
electric field on the surface of the small droplets is thought
to be high enough to make it energetically favorable for
solvated ions to transfer directly into the gas phase. It was
argued that the charge residue mechanism dominates
for masses higher than 3000 Da and the ion evaporation
dominates for lower masses (16). However, the exact
mechanism of ESI is still unknown and recent research has
suggested that gas phase ionization may also occur (17-
19). ESI is known as a sensitive ionization method, however,
with a limited linear range. At high concentrations (>~10- 5 M), a saturation phenomenon is seen and signals no
apolar polar
Figure 2: Application area of two ionization interfaces: ESI and APCI. ESI is more suited for polar
molecules or compounds with a high molecular weight.

A IONIZATION DESORPTION
+ +
+ +
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ +
longer increase when increasing concentrations (15,20).
In APCI, neutral analytes are vaporized by heating of the
LC flow (1). The ionization relies on the transfer of charge
between a reagent ion formed at the charged corona
needle and a target ion (1). The maximum number of ions
that can be generated by APCI is much higher than in ESI,
because the reagent ions in APCI are formed redundantly.
Consequently, the linear range of APCI is wider and, also
considering the immediate evaporation of the mobile
phase, higher flow rates can be used.
In the mass analyser, the gas phase ions formed in the
ionization interface are separated based on their m/z
ratios. Common used mass analysers are quadrupole,
ion trap and time of flight. LC-MS is a very powerful tool
because of the ability to combine two mass analysers (not
necessarily the same type) and a collision cell to MS/MS
which can be used in different scan modes (1,10,21). Since
the type of mass analyser and the used scan mode do not
influence matrix effects, a discussion concerning the mass
analyzing part is beyond the scope of this review. For more
information, the reader can find excellent descriptions
elsewhere (1,10,21). The last part of a mass spectrometer
is the detector. The most common detection device is an
electron multiplier (1).
TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
+ + + +
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ + +
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ +
+
+
LC +
MS
LC
Potential
+
+ +
+ +
+
+ + +
+ +
+ + +
+
+
+
+
Analyte
Mobile phase
B VAPORIZATION IONIZATION
Heat
Analyte
Mobile phase
+
+
+
+ +
+ + +
+
+ + + +
+ + +
+
+
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ +
Corona needle with potential
Figure 3: Schematic overview of two ionization interfaces: ESI (A) and APCI (B). (A) In ESI, ionization
in the liquid phase (and perhaps also in the gas phase) is followed by desorption (i.e. vaporization
because of electrical potential, in ESI possibly assisted by heat and/or gas). (B) In APCI, vaporization
by heat is followed by ionization of reagent molecules at the corona needle. The ionized reagent
molecules finally can transfer their charge to the target molecules.
MS
5. Matrix effects
5.1. Definition
Matrix effects are defined as any change in the ionization
process of an analyte due to a co-eluting compound;
this can result in ion suppression or ion enhancement
(1). It would be better just to use ‘signal suppression or
enhancement’ instead of ‘matrix effects’, since the coeluting
compounds responsible for this phenomenon can
also be other substances than matrix components (22).
Matrix effects are mostly observed in the beginning of a
chromatographic run, since all polar and non-retained
substances elute close to the solvent front (7,22-24). The
phenomenon was first described in 1990, but until today
the exact mechanism is still unknown (20). Matrix effects
are compound-dependent: a study showed that more
polar analytes are more sensitive to loss of signal (25,26).
And of course, matrix effects depend on the matrix: as
the complexity of the samples increases, more and more
matrix effects can be seen. Considering the different
working mechanism of the two most popular ionization
interfaces, the mechanism of matrix effects will also be
different for ESI and APCI. Several hypotheses on the
mechanism of ion suppression have been formulated and
will be briefly discussed here. For ESI, four mechanisms have
been proposed: two mechanisms focus on the effect of
interfering compounds on the ionization of the analyte
Page 11

TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
(mechanism 1 and 4), the other two on the droplet
formation and evaporation resulting in gas phase ions.
Mechanisms 1, 2 and 3 occur in liquid phase, mechanism
4 takes place in gas phase. 1) As described in section
4.2, at high concentrations, ionization saturation occurs.
In samples containing interfering compounds, the limit
concentration can be easily reached. At that point,
the analyte of interest and other substances will have
to compete for ionization. Ion suppression is caused by
a limited number of charges on the droplet surface or
more likely by analytes that are trapped in the centre of
the droplet and will not be able to access the surface
for gas emission (15). 2) Non-volatile compounds may
precipitate with the analyte resulting in solid formation
(27). According to the ion evaporation model, precipitates
may also prevent the droplets to reach the critical radius
and electrical surface field necessary for ion emission
and thus limit the transfer of analytes to the gas phase
(28). 3) Interferences can change the viscosity and the
surface tension of the droplets, thereby reducing solvent
evaporation and the ability of the analyte to reach the
gas phase (29). 4) Droplets can be contaminated with
substances which may evaporate as neutrals. If the gas
phase proton affinity of these neutrals is higher than that
of the analyte, transfer of a proton from the analyte to
Page 12
A
standard
blank matrix extract + standard
LC column
MS
B
mobile phase
blank matrix extract
LC column
MS
analyte
syringe
pump
the interference may occur in the gas phase (20). APCI
suffers less from matrix effects than ESI, since there is no
competition between the analytes to enter the gas phase
in ionized form (30). 1) Solid formation may be a mechanism
of ion suppression in APCI (27). 2) Gas phase reactions
such as described in ESI mechanism 4 may cause matrix
effects (30). 3) The efficiency of charge transfer from the
corona needle to the analyte may be changed by the
presence of interferences (30). Although most research
has been focusing on ion suppression, ion enhancement
may also occur (26,31). Gas phase reactions for both ESI
and APCI and changed charge transfer from the corona
needle for APCI seem to be possible explanations for this
phenomenon. Whether the result is ion suppression or ion
enhancement, the co-elution of an analyte with interfering
compounds can seriously affect precision, accuracy and
sensitivity of a method. Therefore testing for matrix effects
should be an integral part of LC-MS method validation,
especially in forensic toxicology using often dirty samples.
If possible, strategies to decrease matrix effects should be
applied.
5.2. Evaluation
To evaluate matrix effects, two approaches are commonly
used: a post-extraction addition method and post-column
i
n
t
e
n
s
it
y
i
n
t
e
n
s
it
y
*
time
* *
Figure 4: Schematic overview of two strategies to evaluate matrix effects. A region of ion suppression
is indicated with an asterix. (A) In the post-extraction addition method, the signals of a standard
solution and a post-extraction spiked sample are compared. (B) In the post-column infusion method,
there is comparison between a blank sample and a blank matrix extract, which are injected while
the analyte is continuously added to the column eluent.
time

infusion method. In the post-extraction addition method,
matrix effects (ME), recovery (RE) and overall process
efficiency (PE) can be determined by comparing the
response of a standard solution, a pre-extraction spiked
sample and a post-extraction spiked sample (fig. 4A)
(4). In the post-column infusion system, matrix effects are
determined by comparing the signal of a blank sample
and a blank matrix extract which are injected into the LC
system while the analyte is continuously infused into the
column eluent before entering the mass spectrometer
(fig. 4B) (25). Post-column infusion gives qualitative
information about the matrix effects during the entire
chromatographic run, while the post-extraction addition
approach gives quantitative information, but only at the
time of elution (1). More recently, an approach using
comparison of the precision of slopes of calibration
curves generated in different sources was described
(32). This method is less labour intensive as calibration
curves from linearity experiments can be used. However
only the variability of the overall process efficiency can
be determined and not the values or variability of matrix
effects and recovery separately.
5.3. Solutions
Changes in five domains can eliminate, reduce or at
least compensate for matrix effects and will be discussed
here: the amount of sample, sample preparation,
chromatography, mass spectrometry and calibration.
a) Amount of sample
Reducing the injection volume is a simple way to reduce
the number of species competing for ionization (7,33).
However, sensitivity is reduced. The sample or the extract
can be diluted, again the main drawback being the
decrease of limits of detection (34).
b) Sample preparation
More extensive sample clean-up and better extraction
methods results in fewer co-eluting components and
thus less matrix effects. In all papers comparing sample
preparation, sample dilution and/or protein precipitation
showed the greatest amount of matrix effects, while
SPE and LLE resulted in cleaner extracts (23,25,28,35-37).
Especially mixed-mode SPE, i.e. SPE that combines two
retention mechanisms, was very useful to avoid matrix
effects (23,36,37). When using SPE, the protocol should be
carefully evaluated, since not only the analytes of interest
but also interfering substances can be concentrated,
magnifying matrix effects (24). To optimize the SPE
procedure, extra wash steps can be added or the elution
solvent can be optimised (36-40).
c) Chromatography
Changing chromatography to reduce the degree of
co-elution between interfering compounds and the
analyte of interest can help in reducing matrix effects.
Therefore, the mobile phase can be optimized: changing
TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
organic modifier, mobile phase additives, buffers, pH,
eluotropic strength or elution profile may reduce matrix
effects (7,8,22,33-38). Changing column parameters
can also be effective for reducing matrix effects: for
example changing column chemistry changes selectivity
and using a longer column enhances separation (7).
Moreover, when using columns with smaller particles or
UFLC, resolution is improved, thus reducing matrix effects
(37,40,41). Other researchers used LC/LC, i.e. the coupling
of two columns with different retention mechanisms in
order to achieve better separation (34). Generally, the
higher the flow rate, the higher the level of matrix effects
since more organic material requires ionization at the
same time (26,42). Flow rate can be drastically reduced
by using a nanosplitting device or a post-column split
(39,42,43).
d) Mass spectrometry
In general, matrix effects are more pronounced in ESI than
in APCI, so changing to APCI might help (4,7,24,27,35). The
negative ionization mode is considered more selective
than the positive mode since fewer compounds give a
signal in the negative mode. Switching to negative mode
may lower matrix effects (22). Of course, in this case, the
analyte should be detectable in both ionization polarities.
e) Calibration
The appropriate use of a calibration technique will
ensure that the calculated concentrations, accuracy
and precision of a method are unaffected, but cannot
compensate for reduced sensitivity associated with
signal suppression. External matrix-matched calibrators
(i.e. standards with the same or similar matrix composition
as the analysed sample) can be used to compensate for
matrix effects (44). However, this requires that the matrix
is fairly constant and that a control matrix is available,
ruling out its use in forensic toxicology considering the
highly variable composition of forensic samples. Internal
standards (IS) can be used to compensate for variations
in injection, sample preparation, instrumental parameters
and also matrix effects (45). An appropriate IS will be
affected in the same way by a matrix effect than the
analyte, therefore the response ratio of the compounds
will remain unchanged (4,7,35,38,39,45,46). Because they
possess almost equal physicochemical properties as the
analyte, isotopically labelled standards are preferred, but
structurally related unlabelled compounds can also be
used (45). However, even when using isotopically labelled
standards, changes in the response ratio occur (26,31,46-
48). This can be caused by the slightest difference in
retention time resulting in a different matrix effect on two
compounds, different extraction behaviour or mutual
influence on ionization of the analyte and the IS (26,31,45-
48). Therefore, the IS and its used concentration should
be carefully selected (31). The concentration of internal
standard should not be too high to avoid influence of
the IS on the analyte. However, if the concentration IS
Page 13

TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
is too low, the analyte can influence the signal of the IS
(26,46). Other less often used calibration techniques are
echo peak technique, standard addition, extrapolative
dilution and (segmented) post-column standard addition.
In the echo peak technique an unknown sample and a
standard solution are injected in one run, causing the peak
of the standard to form an ‘echo peak’. Provided that
retention times of these two peaks are close enough to
be affected by interfering substances in the same manner,
matrix effects are compensated (44,49). Since the smallest
difference in retention time can cause a difference in
matrix effects, this approach may not be optimal for
analyzing forensic samples which can contain several
interferences. Standard addition is a method to quantify
analytes by analyzing the unknown sample before and
after addition of standard solution (50). This procedure is
time consuming because spiked samples must be run for
each unknown. In the extrapolative dilution approach, a
sample is repeatedly diluted until the limit of quantitation
is reached (51). The concentration of the analyte in each
dilution is calculated using a calibration curve based
on standard soluitions (51). By plotting the calculated
concentration versus the dilution factor, matrix effects
can be detected and the correct concentration can be
determined (51). This is a labour intensive method since
several dilutions for each sample have to be analysed.
In forensic toxicology, these time consuming approaches
(standard addition and extrapolative dilution approach)
might be interesting to study rare cases, analyzing
compounds that are not comprised in generally validated
methods. In (segmented) post-column standard addition,
an internal standard is (periodically) infused into the LC
effluent to visualize and compensate for matrix effects
using the principle shown in fig. 4B (52,53). Co-elution of
internal standard and analyte of interest is not necessary,
so isotopically labelled standards are not required and
one compound can be used for several analytes, making
this approach interesting for multi-analyte procedures
(52). However, one should be aware that only the use of
an IS can adequately compensate for variable signal loss
attributed to both sample preparation and matrix effects.
Echo peak technique, standard addition, extrapolative
dilution and (segmented) post-column standard addition
are best applied to methods where the loss during sample
preparation is minimal since they only compensate for
altered signals caused by matrix effects. The complexity
of forensic samples can cause variability in both sample
preparation and matrix effects, making the use of an IS to
solve matrix effects more suited.
5. Conclusion
Matrix effects are the major problem of LC-MS/MS. They are
dependent on the analyte, the matrix and the ionization
interface used. Forensic toxicology is often influenced by
these matrix effects, since forensic samples can have a
complex compostion, containing multiple components
which may possibly disturb analysis. Evaluation of
Page 14
matrix effects should be an integral part of method
development in forensic toxicology. If matrix effects occur,
adaptations in the amount of sample, sample preparation,
chromatography, mass spectrometry or calibration can
eliminate, reduce or at least compensate for matrix effects.
References
1. A. Polettini. Applications of LC-MS in toxicology, 1st ed.
Pharmaceutical Press, London, UK, 2006.
2. O.H. Drummer and M. Odell. The Forensic Pathology of
Drugs of Abuse, Arnold, London, UK, 2001.
3. O.H. Drummer. Postmortem toxicology of drugs of abuse.
Forensic Sci Int. 142: 101-113 (2004).
4. B.K. Matuszewski, M.L. Constanzer and C.M. Chavez-
Eng. Strategies for the assessment of matrix effect in
quantitative bioanalytical methods based on HPLC-MS/
MS. Anal Chem. 75: 3019-3030 (2003).
5. M.C. Yarema and C.E. Becker. Key concepts in
postmortem drug redistribution. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 43:
235-241 (2005).
6. S.M. Wille and W.E. Lambert. Recent developments in
extraction procedures relevant to analytical toxicology.
Anal Bioanal Chem. 388: 1381-1391 (2007).
7. S.D. Clarke, H.M. Hill, T.A.G. Noctor and D. Thomas.
Matrix-related modification of ionization in bioanalytical
liquid chromatography-atmospheric pressure ionization
tandem mass spectrometry. Pharmaceutical Sciences.
2: 203-207 (1996).
8. C. Polson, P. Sarkar, B. Incledon, V. Raguvaran and R.
Grant. Optimization of protein precipitation based upon
effectiveness of protein removal and ionization effect in
liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. J
Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci. 785: 263-
275 (2003).
9. X.H. Chen, J.P. Franke, J. Wijsbeek and R.A. de Zeeuw.
Isolation of acidic, neutral, and basic drugs from whole
blood using a single mixed-mode solid-phase extraction
column. J Anal Toxicol. 16: 351-355 (1992).
10. M.C. McMaster. LC/MS: a practical user’s guide, Wiley-
Interscience, New Jersey, US, 2005.
11. M.I. Churchwell, N.C. Twaddle, L.R. Meeker and D.R.
Doerge. Improving LC-MS sensitivity through increases in
chromatographic performance: comparisons of UPLC-
ES/MS/MS to HPLC-ES/MS/MS. J Chromatogr B Analyt
Technol Biomed Life Sci. 825: 134-143 (2005).
12. D. Guillarme, J. Ruta, S. Rudaz and J.L. Veuthey. New
trends in fast and high-resolution liquid chromatography:
a critical comparison of existing approaches. Anal
Bioanal Chem. 397: 1069-1082 (2010).
13. J.M. Cunliffe and T.D. Maloney. Fused-core particle
technology as an alternative to sub-2-microm particles
to achieve high separation efficiency with low
backpressure. J Sep Sci. 30: 3104-3109 (2007).
14. R.W. Brice, X. Zhang and L.A. Colon. Fused-core, sub-
2 mum packings, and monolithic HPLC columns: a
comparative evaluation. J Sep Sci. (2009).
15. A. Bruins. Mechanistic aspects of electrospray ionisation.
J Chromatogr A. 794: 345-357 (1998).
16. R.B. Cole. Some tenets pertaining to electrospray
ionization mass spectrometry. J Mass Spectrom. 35: 763-
772 (2000).
17. L. Peng and T. Farkas. Analysis of basic compounds by
reversed-phase liquid chromatography-electrospray
mass spectrometry in high-pH mobile phases. J

Chromatogr A. 1179: 131-144 (2008).
18. B.A. Mansoori, D.A. Volmer and R.K. Boyd. ‘Wrong-wayround’
electrospray ionization of amino acids. Rapid
Commun Mass Spectrom. 11: 1120-1130 (1997).
19. S. Zhou and K.D. Cook. Protonation in electrospray mass
spectrometry: wrong-way-round or right-way-round? J
Am Soc Mass Spectrom. 11: 961-966 (2000).
20. M.G. Ikonomou, A.T. Blades and P. Kebarle.
Investigations of the electrospray interface for liquid
chromatography/mass spectrometry. Anal Chem. 62:
957-967 (1990).
21. G. Hopfgartner, E. Varesio, V. Tschappat, C. Grivet, E.
Bourgogne and L.A. Leuthold. Triple quadrupole linear
ion trap mass spectrometer for the analysis of small
molecules and macromolecules. J Mass Spectrom. 39:
845-855 (2004).
22. J. Antignac, K. de Wasch, F. Monteau, H. De
Brabander, F. Andre and B. Le Bizec. The ion
suppression phenomenon in liquid chromatographymass
spectrometry and its consequences in the field of
residue analysis. Analytica Chimica Acta. 529: 129-136
(2005).
23. C. Muller, P. Schafer, M. Stortzel, S. Vogt and
W. Weinmann. Ion suppression effects in liquid
chromatography-electrospray-ionisation transportregion
collision induced dissociation mass spectrometry
with different serum extraction methods for systematic
toxicological analysis with mass spectra libraries. J
Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci. 773: 47-
52 (2002).
24. R. Dams, M.A. Huestis, W.E. Lambert and C.M. Murphy.
Matrix effect in bio-analysis of illicit drugs with LC-MS/
MS: influence of ionization type, sample preparation,
and biofluid. J Am Soc Mass Spectrom. 14: 1290-1294
(2003).
25. R. Bonfiglio, R.C. King, T.V. Olah and K. Merkle. The
effects of sample preparation methods on the variability
of the electrospray ionization response for model drug
compounds. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 13: 1175-
1185 (1999).
26. H.R. Liang, R.L. Foltz, M. Meng and P. Bennett.
Ionization enhancement in atmospheric pressure
chemical ionization and suppression in electrospray
ionization between target drugs and stable-isotopelabeled
internal standards in quantitative liquid
chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. Rapid
Commun Mass Spectrom. 17: 2815-2821 (2003).
27. R. King, R. Bonfiglio, C. Fernandez-Metzler, C. Miller-Stein
and T. Olah. Mechanistic investigation of ionization
suppression in electrospray ionization. J Am Soc Mass
Spectrom. 11: 942-950 (2000).
28. D.L. Buhrman, P.I. Price and P.J. Rudewicz. Quantitation
of SR 27417 in human plasma using electrospray liquid
chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry: a study
of ion suppression. J Am Soc Mass Spectrom. 7: 1099-
1105 (1996).
29. F. Beaudry and P. Vachon. Electrospray ionization
suppression, a physical or a chemical phenomenon?
Biomed Chromatogr. 20: 200-205 (2006).
30. T. Sangster, M. Spence, P. Sinclair, R. Payne and C.
Smith. Unexpected observation of ion suppression
in a liquid chromatography/atmospheric pressure
chemical ionization mass spectrometric bioanalytical
method. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 18: 1361-1364
(2004).
31. D. Remane, D.K. Wissenbach, M.R. Meyer and H.H.
Maurer. Systematic investigation of ion suppression
and enhancement effects of fourteen stable-isotopelabeled
internal standards by their native analogues
using atmospheric-pressure chemical ionization and
electrospray ionization and the relevance for multianalyte
liquid chromatographic/mass spectrometric
procedures. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 24: 859-
TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
867 (2010).
32. B.K. Matuszewski. Standard line slopes as a measure of a
relative matrix effect in quantitative HPLC-MS bioanalysis.
J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci. 830: 293-
300 (2006).
33. B.K. Choi, D.M. Hercules and A.I. Gusev. LC-MS/MS signal
suppression effects in the analysis of pesticides in complex
environmental matrices. Fresenius J Anal Chem. 369: 370-
377 (2001).
34. J.V. Sancho, O.J. Pozo, F.J. Lopez and F. Hernandez.
Different quantitation approaches for xenobiotics
in human urine samples by liquid chromatography/
electrospray tandem mass spectrometry. Rapid Commun
Mass Spectrom. 16: 639-645 (2002).
35. B.K. Matuszewski, M.L. Constanzer and C.M. Chavez-
Eng. Matrix effect in quantitative LC/MS/MS analyses of
biological fluids: a method for determination of finasteride
in human plasma at picogram per milliliter concentrations.
Anal Chem. 70: 882-889 (1998).
36. C.R. Mallet, Z. Lu and J.R. Mazzeo. A study of ion
suppression effects in electrospray ionization from mobile
phase additives and solid-phase extracts. Rapid Commun
Mass Spectrom. 18: 49-58 (2004).
37. E. Chambers, D.M. Wagrowski-Diehl, Z. Lu and J.R. Mazzeo.
Systematic and comprehensive strategy for reducing
matrix effects in LC/MS/MS analyses. J Chromatogr B
Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci. 852: 22-34 (2007).
38. T. Benijts, R. Dams, W. Lambert and A. De Leenheer.
Countering matrix effects in environmental liquid
chromatography-electrospray ionization tandem mass
spectrometry water analysis for endocrine disrupting
chemicals. J Chromatogr A. 1029: 153-159 (2004).
39. J.C. Van de Steene, K.A. Mortier and W.E. Lambert.
Tackling matrix effects during development of a liquid
chromatographic-electrospray ionisation tandem mass
spectrometric analysis of nine basic pharmaceuticals in
aqueous environmental samples. J Chromatogr A. 1123:
71-81 (2006).
40. R. Verplaetse and J. Tytgat. Development and validation
of a sensitive ultra performance liquid chromatography
tandem mass spectrometry method for the analysis of
fentanyl and its major metabolite norfentanyl in urine and
whole blood in forensic context. J Chromatogr B Analyt
Technol Biomed Life Sci. 878: 1987-1996
41. J.C. Van De Steene and W.E. Lambert. Comparison of
matrix effects in HPLC-MS/MS and UPLC-MS/MS analysis of
nine basic pharmaceuticals in surface waters. J Am Soc
Mass Spectrom. 19: 713-718 (2008).
42. A. Kloepfer, J.B. Quintana and T. Reemtsma. Operational
options to reduce matrix effects in liquid chromatographyelectrospray
ionization-mass spectrometry analysis of
aqueous environmental samples. J Chromatogr A. 1067:
153-160 (2005).
43. E.T. Gangl, M.M. Annan, N. Spooner and P. Vouros.
Reduction of signal suppression effects in ESI-MS using a
nanosplitting device. Anal Chem. 73: 5635-5644 (2001).
44. J. Zrostlikova, J. Hajslova, J. Poustka and P. Begany.
Alternative calibration approaches to compensate
the effect of co-extracted matrix components in liquid
chromatography-electrospray ionisation tandem mass
spectrometry analysis of pesticide residues in plant
materials. J Chromatogr A. 973: 13-26 (2002).
45. J. Wieling. LC-MS-MS experiments with internal standards.
Chromatographia Supplement. 55: S107-S113 (2002).
46. L.E. Sojo, G. Lum and P. Chee. Internal standard signal
suppression by co-eluting analyte in isotope dilution LC-
ESI-MS. Analyst. 128: 51-54 (2003).
47. M. Jemal, A. Schuster and D.B. Whigan. Liquid
chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry methods
for quantitation of mevalonic acid in human plasma
and urine: method validation, demonstration of using a
surrogate analyte, and demonstration of unacceptable
Page 15

TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
Page 16
matrix effect in spite of use of a stable isotope analog
internal standard. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 17:
1723-1734 (2003).
48. S. Wang, M. Cyronak and E. Yang. Does a stable
isotopically labeled internal standard always correct
analyte response? A matrix effect study on a LC/
MS/MS method for the determination of carvedilol
enantiomers in human plasma. J Pharm Biomed Anal.
43: 701-707 (2007).
49. L. Alder, S. Luderitz, K. Lindtner and H.J. Stan. The ECHO
technique--the more effective way of data evaluation
in liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry
analysis. J Chromatogr A. 1058: 67-79 (2004).
50. S. Ito and K. Tsukada. Matrix effect and correction
by standard addition in quantitative liquid
chromatographic-mass spectrometric analysis of
diarrhetic shellfish poisoning toxins. J Chromatogr A.
943: 39-46 (2002).
51. A. Kruve, I. Leito and K. Herodes. Combating matrix
effects in LC/ESI/MS: the extrapolative dilution
approach. Anal Chim Acta. 651: 75-80 (2009).
52. B.K. Choi, A.I. Gusev and D.M. Hercules. Postcolumn
introduction of an internal standard for quantitative LC-
MS analysis. Anal Chem. 71: 4107-4110 (1999).
53. A. Kaufmann and P. Butcher. Segmented post-column
analyte addition; a concept for continuous response
control of liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry
peaks affected by signal suppression/enhancement.
Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 19: 611-617 (2005).
Ruth Verplaetse (born 1984) studied Biomedical Sciences
at the University of Leuven (Belgium). In 2006 she started
working with LC-MS/MS at the Laboratory of Toxicology in
Leuven. Within a few months she will finish her PhD entitled
“Analysis of narcotic analgesics in biological samples by
UFLC-MS/MS”. In her doctoral work, several parameters
influencing the quality of sample preparation and LC-MS/
MS analysis were thoroughly studied.

Perspectives in Drug
Discovery
5. Central Stimulant Amines
Alan Wayne Jones, Ph.D., DSc.
Department of Forensic Toxicology, National
Board of Forensic Medicine, Artillerigatan
12, Linköping, SE-587 58 Sweden.
wayne.jones@rmv.se
If depressants apply the brakes on the brain then central
stimulants are the accelerators – hence the slang or street
name “speed” for amphetamine and methamphetamine.
The prototype central stimulant amine is amphetamine
(1-phenyl-2-aminopropane or ß-phenylisopropylamine),
which according to the MERCK index was synthesized in
1887 by organic chemists in Berlin. However, the first well
documented pharmacological testing of amphetamine
in humans and animals was spearheaded by Gordon
Alles (1901-1963) during the 1930s when he worked at the
University of California in San Francisco.
Results of human dosing studies showed that amphetamine
possessed vasoconstrictor properties and caused a marked
rise in blood pressure and dilatation of the bronchial tubes
of the lungs. Unexpectedly some of the volunteer subjects
experienced a marked elevation in mood; they became
more talkative and seemed to have increased energy and
a higher working capacity. These observations prompted
a serious consideration of amphetamine as a pick-meup
or a psycho-stimulant for possible use in treatment of
depression. Amphetamine is a racemate with a single
asymmetric carbon atom rendering optical activity. The
d-isomer or (+)-amphetamine is more pharmacologically
active than the l-form, a discovery also made by Gordon
Alles after self-administration of the two enantioners. The
contributions of Alles to the pharmacology and toxicology
of amphetamine has not received enough recognition to
date.
The results of the work by Gordon Alles were communicated
to the pharmaceutical company Smith Kline & French
(SKF), who developed and marketed amphetamine as
a nasal decongestant. A patent was filed in 1933 for
Benzedrine®, which was a mixture of the d- and l-forms of
amphetamine as its volatile free base and administered by
sniffing into each nostril. Benzedrine® was highly effective
for its intended purpose but more and more users reported
elevation of mood and exhilaration after repeated
use, which prompted SKF’s marketing department to
considered use of amphetamine as an antidepressant.
Another product manufactured by SKF and sold as a nasal
decongestant was Dexedrine® which consisted essentially
of the d-isomer of amphetamine which was thought would
prove less problematic compared with Benzedrine® but
this was not the case.
TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
During WW2, allied soldiers were issued with amphetamine
tablets to counteract fatigue and to increase alertness and
enhance battle morale. Even today amphetamine-like
drugs (10-20 mg) are made available to air-force pilots to
help them remain awake and heighten their concentration
on long-distance flights. Much basic and clinical research
on amphetamine has focused on its psycho-stimulant
properties and the factors influencing the development of
tolerance and dependence when used as a recreational
drug, which increased in popularity during the hippy and
student revolts of the 1960s.
Another widely abused central stimulant is the secondary
amine methamphetamine, which was synthesized in
Japan in 1919 and used by troops during WW2 to reduce
battle fatigue, to boost morale and to alleviate hunger.
After the war an epidemic of central stimulant abuse arose
in Japan as well as in other nations, including Sweden. The
dependence liability of central stimulants was amplified
after the intravenous route of administration became
popular, which in turn led to a higher degree of tolerance
and the need for higher doses to give the same euphoric
effects. Taking amphetamine intravenously was associated
with serious side-effects including attacks of paranoia
and delusions and bizarre schizophrenia-like behaviour
in some people. The abuse potential of amphetamine
and methamphetamine has curtailed their usefulness
as therapeutic agents and both drugs have long been
classified as controlled substances (class II).
Besides therapeutic uses as a nasal decongestant,
amphetamine and some of its derivatives were evaluated
as anti-obesity drugs (anorexic), for treatment of narcolepsy
(falling asleep), and for attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD) in adolescents. A more recent but
controversial use of amphetamine-like drugs is for cognitive
enhancement in otherwise healthy individuals. This off-label
use is promoted by some young executives of the yuppie
generation as a way to increase their concentration
and memory, to provide more self-confidence, a higher
working capacity and the drive to succeed in business. In
this connection methylphenidate has attracted a lot of
attention as a brain booster or cognitive enhancer along
with the structurally dissimilar modafinil, although the
mechanism of action of this latter drug and its long-term
effects are unknown.
The ability of amphetamine to increase stamina and
endurance meant that the drug found its way into sports as
a way to improve an athlete’s performance. Unfortunately,
when used as a doping agent by professional cyclists
the cardiovascular effects of amphetamine along with
dehydration led to a condition of extreme exhaustion and
several deaths were reported and helped to encourage
more stringent doping control in this sport.
The presence of a single methyl group in the side chain
distinguishes amphetamine from phenylethylamine,
which is a naturally occurring amine contained in certain
foodstuffs, such as chocolate, wine and cheese. But this
amine has no medical risks because of an effective firstpass
metabolism by monoamine oxidase (MAO) enzymes
located in the gut and liver. The alpha methyl group in
amphetamine protects it from degradation by the MAO
Page 17

TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
enzyme, which means it is orally active and also more easily
crosses the blood-brain barrier.
The chemical structure of amphetamine resembles the
biogenic amines dopamine, adrenaline and norepinephrine
(noradrenaline) that transmit information between nerve
cells. This gives a clue to the way amphetamine acts in the
brain, namely as a false transmitter amine and also seems
to functioning as a re-uptake inhibitor. When amphetamine
enters a synapse it forces dopamine and noradrenaline to
be released from nerve endings into the synaptic cleft thus
facilitating binding to receptors on postsynaptic neurons.
Their ability to stimulate body functions controlled by the
sympathetic nervous system meant that amphetamine
and its analogues were referred to as sympathomimetic
amines, a term coined by the British pharmacologist and
Nobel Laureate Sir Henry Dale (1875-1968).
Central stimulants entered the spotlight in the 1990s along
with the rise in popularity of designer drugs by adolescents
belonging to the rave culture. Young people took an
ecstasy (MDMA) tablet to give them energy and to
heighten their sexual arousal and to keep awake during
all-night rave parties and dance sessions. Ecstasy combines
both stimulant (amphetamine-like) and hallucinogenic
(mescaline-like) properties by acting on receptors for both
dopamine and serotonin.
History shows that MDMA was first synthesized by the
German pharmaceutical company Merck (Darmstadt)
in 1912 in connection with research aimed at developing
drugs to prevent blood clotting. The date of the first human
studies with MDMA is not known, although its stimulant
properties became well known through the writings of
Alexander Shulgin (born 1925) as described in his book
PIHKAL. The popularity of MDMA as a recreational drug
attracted attention from government agencies after a
number of overdose deaths were reported. The lack of
any therapeutic uses of MDMA led to its classification as a
scheduled substance (class I).
There is a current trend among some teenagers to obtain
central stimulant “designer drugs” over the Internet the socalled
“legal highs”. These Internet drugs are structurally
related to amphetamine or methamphetamine and work
Page 18
by interacting with dopamine or serotonin neurotransmission.
Examples include p-methoxyamphetamine (PMA),
p-methoxymethamphetamine, 4-methylthioamphetmaine
(MTA), methedrone (4-methoxy-methcathinone),
N-benzylpiperazine (BZP or A2) and mephedrone
(4-methylmethcathinone). Many have become listed as
scheduled substances in efforts to restrict their import and
sales, but as one compound is banned another appears to
take its place. It is seemingly a simple task for clandestine
laboratories and their chemists to make a small minor
structural modification and obtained a compound that is
sufficiently different that it is not covered by the ban.
Further reading
Iversen L. Speed, Ecstasy, Ritalin - the science of
amphetamines. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006.
Rasmussen N. On speed: The many lives of amphetamines.
New York, New York University Press, 2008.
Rasmussen N. Making the first anti-depressant:
Amphetamine in American Medicine. J Hist Med Allied Sci
61;288-323, 2006.
Freudenmann RW, Öxler F, Bernschneider-Reif S. The origin
of MDMA (ecstasy) revisited: the true story reconstructed
from the original documents. Addiction 101:1241-1245,
2006.
Cruickshank CC, Dyer KR. A review of the clinical
pharmacology of methamphetamine. Addiction 104:1085-
1099, 2009.
Kalant H. The pharmacology and toxicology of “ecstasy”
(MDMA) and related drugs. CMAJ 165:917-928, 2001.
Benzenhöfer U, Passie T. Rediscovering MDMA (ecstasy):
the role of the American chemist Alexander T. Shulgin.
Addiction 105:1355-1361, 2010.
Stix G. Turbocharging the brain. Sci Am Oct 28-35, 2009.

Chemical structures of some central stimulant amines
Amphetamine
Phenylethylamine
CH 3
N-benzylpiperazine (A2)
O
O
NH 2
NH 2
CH 3
NH
CH 3
Ecstasy (methylene dioxymethamphetamine)
MDMA
N
NH
CH 3
NH
Methamphetamine
O
NH2 Catinone
O
CH 3
CH 3
Phenmetrazine
NH
O
O
NH
Methylphenidate
I WANT YOU....
TO WIN 500USD!!
CH 3
TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
CH 3
Phentermine
CH
3
Mephedrone
3CH
O
Methedrone
CH 3
O
3CH
O
Mescaline
3
CH 3
NH 2
CH
O CH3
O
CH 3
O
NH CH3
CH 3
NH 2
NH
CH 3
TIAFT Prize For Best Paper
Published
In TIAFT Bulletin
TIAFT will be sponsoring an award for Best Scientific Paper
published in the Bulletin over a year. The best paper will
be decided by the TIAFT Executive Board and the award
will be presented at the Annual TIAFT Meeting.
The award winner will be acknowledged with a certificate
and 500 USD. We hope that this encourages our members
to contribute to the Bulletin.
There are some restrictions however and these include
the following:
1. The candidate, or one of his/her co-authors, must be a
TIAFT member;
2. The paper must not be have been published elsewhere.
3. The paper must not infringe copyright of already published
material.
So send your papers to
Dimitri Gerostamoulos and Jochen Beyer.
We can be contacted at tiaftbulletin@gmail.com.
Page 19

TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
19e congrès de la Société Française
de Toxicologie Analytique (SFTA)
49e congrès de la Société de
Toxicologie Clinique (STC)
Society of Hair Testing annual
meeting (SoHT)
Joint symposium with the International
Association of Forensic Toxicologists (TIAFT)
Joint symposium with the International
Association of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring
- (IATDM-CT)
Forensic toxicology in its various forms has
continued to develop strongly around the world
with many national societies contributing to its
development. This includes both forensic and
clinical toxicology-related associations such as
SFTA and STC in France, and of course the SoHT
which focuses on hair as a matrix. This meeting
allows five societies to come together at various
Page 20
stages during this week including IATDM-CT and
TIAFT itself. These joint meetings allow a high
range of discussions and exchange of ideas.
Over 280 participants from 21 countries attended
the meeting in the lovely place of Chamonix,
under the protection of our majestic “Mont
Blanc”. They were staying over a few typical
hotels across the city.
Besides plenary lectures by guest speakers (Olaf
H. Drummer and Robert Wennig), a total of 76
oral presentations and 53 posters were presented
to well-attended audience.
On Monday evening and after a few games
organized outside (rifle shooting, archery, field
hockey, labyrinth…), registration was opened in
the Majestic congress centre. At the same time
and place, the welcome reception started with
a large selection of typical cheeses, cooked
pork and beef meats and wine.
On Tuesday, in the first room, SFTA and STC
met for their annual meeting with an opening
ceremony performed by their presidents, Jean-
Pierre Goullé and Françoise Flesch. There was a
very interesting round table on plant poisoning
and the key point of this day was the great
interface between analysts and physicians.
In the second room, Pascal Kintz was opening the
SoHT annual meeting. Several oral presentations
were dealing with ethyl glucuronide and the
consensus adopted in Rome in 2009 was revised

during the business meeting, in a positive electric
atmosphere.
The dinner took place at the restaurant “La
calèche”, in the centre of Chamonix. Cheese
fondue and “pierrade” 3 meats were on the
menu.
Wednesday morning, SFTA and STC finished
their oral sessions. Pierre Marquet, president
elect of IATDM-CT, planned the organisation
of the afternoon. Five lectures demonstrated
the importance of pharmacogenetics in the
interpretation of results.
Tuesday morning was devoted to industrial
partners workshops. This was just before social
activities including tourism, curling, ascent of the
“Aiguille du Midi” and walk with snowshoes.
Friday was the TIAFT day. It began with the plenary
lecture of Olaf Drummer on drugs and sudden
death. Topics of interest included: cannabis
detection and effects, intoxications cases
(darunavir, Taxus baccata L., ergot, vanadium,
chloralose, strychnine, carbofuran, potassium
dichromate, mephedrone and clozapine),
gestational drug exposure, experimental postmortem
toxicology, and two original case
reports (toxic antipersonnel projectiles and
contamination by cocaine after a kiss).
The poster session and sponsors’ exhibition
started on Tuesday and continued through to
Thursday.
The Gala dinner was held at “La Cabane”, a
local winter cottage of repute with tasty food
and champagne as you wish. After the dessert,
DJ Pascal made most of the participants dance
and have a great party.
The sun was shining all week long!
Marion Villain, X-Pertise Consulting,
Oberhausbergen, France
TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
Page 21

[ Masstrak forensic solutions ]
ACHIEVE EXCELLENCE IN QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE WITH YOUR LC/MS ANALYSIS
Rapid and Comprehensive Unknown Compound
Identification Providing You Versatility in
Meeting Daily Challenges
Total Solutions for All Your Forensic LC/MS
Requirements
Expertise You Can Rely On
Waters offers an unmatched portfolio of advanced mass
spectrometer based system solutions, which deliver
versatility, sensitivity and superior quantitative and
qualitative capabilities.
Toxicologically relevant compounds can be identified in
the widest range of biological matrices, ensuring you
have optimal control of your analytical requirements.
For more information and to request a copy of our new
applications brochure, visit www.waters.com/forensics/TIAFT
We provide not only the complete system solution – the validated methodology, application expertise, support
and services that are tailored for the forensic laboratory are also included.
Our industry leading UPLC ® and mass spectrometer technologies are supported by the best available forensic
toxicology applications experience. We ensure that you are empowered to drive your laboratory efficiency to new
levels and create data of the highest quality.
We are committed to the quality of your results!
©2010 Waters Corporation. UPLC, MassTrak, Waters, and The Science of What’s Possible are trademarks of Waters Corporation.

Preliminary Program
TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
Conference Registration 2011
FACTA Inc. - Forensic and Clinical Toxicology Association (Incorporated)
FACTA Inc.
57-83 Kavanagh St
2nd Annual Conference, Sunday July 31 - Wednesday 3 August 2011
Southbank, Victoria, 3006
2011 Scientific Conference
Australia
Venue: RACV Club, 501 Bourke St, Melbourne, Australia
Phone: +613 9684 4444
Fax: +613 9682 7353
This is A to four-day announce the Conference second annual has conference been scheduled of the Forensic to and be Clinical held Toxicology in Melbourne Association from (of Sunday Australasia) 31st July to Wednesday
www.facta.org.au
3rd August
(FACTA) to be held in 2011. The Professor venue will Lionel be the RACV Raymon Club in and Bourke Dr St Frank Melbourne Peters from are July confirmed 31-August 3, as 2011. speakers for
Contact:
this meeting.
More details also available on our web site at www.facta.org.au.
secretary@facta.org.au
Please see www.facta.org.au for further information regarding registration, corporate sponsorship and details on the
There will be a Pharmacology workshop on Sunday afternoon July 31st - Presented by Professor Lionel Raymon (Florida,
USA). Anyone interested in sponsorship and/or wanting a vendor display/demonstration, student scholarship. or any other enquiries please
contact secretary@facta.org.au.
Non-members are welcome to apply for membership – please see web site for details.
Attendee Information
Name:
Name (2):
Name (3):
Name (4):
Registration Fees
1. Mon-Wed Conf Fee (Members): $660AUD inc GST
Forensic and Clinical Toxicology Association (FACTA) Biennial Conference
2nd Floor, RACV Club, 3. Mon-Wed Bourke Conf Fee St, (Students): Melbourne
Sunday 31st July to Wednesday August 3rd 4. Sunday Workshop Fee (all persons): , 2011
Indicate number of
Attendees
Number:_______
2. Mon-Wed Conf Fee(Non- Members): $770AUD inc GST Number:_______
$550AUD inc GST Number:_______
$110AUD inc GST Number:_______
Company:
Address:
Time Sunday Monday
Total Amount Due: (Add items together)____________________________
Tuesday Wednesday
State/Province:
Zip/Postal Code:
AM
Country:
Symposium Payment Cheque payable to: FACTA inc.
Screening techniques
Keynote
A receipt and tax invoice Keynote will be sent to you
confirming your Free registration. presentations on
using tandem MS and Post-Mortem Toxicology
Drugs and Driving
TOF
PM
Main Contact:
Forensic
Pharmacology
workshop
Keynote
Clinical Toxicology
Keynote
Sports Testing/Illicit Drugs
Workplace drug testing Free presentations
Email:
Phone:
Evening
Opening
refreshments
Vendor Displays
Free night
Conference Dinner
Melbourne Cricket Business meeting at 4 PM
Ground
Special Needs:
Program registration includes poster presentations, trade displays, lunch and drink breaks, and the
Contact conference Details dinner
Notes:
Once you have entered all your data, please print a copy for your
records. Please fax your abstract form to +61 3 9682 7353.
Forensic pharmacology workshop will be charged separately
Alternatively you can save and email back as a PDF to
Tel: +61 3 9684 4334
secretary@facta.org.au
Fax: +61 3 9682 7353
Deadline for abstracts is 1
E-mail: secretary@facta.org.au
Web: www.facta.org.au
st May, 2011. Early Bird registration for conference is
$660 inc GST for members and $770 for non-members.
Early bird registration ends on 30th June 2011. Registration costs will
increase after this date. Onsite - day registrations for conference will be $300
inc GST.
Sunday July 31st Credit Card - You can pay via PayPal at FACTA
website. Go to http://www.facta.org.
au/2011_meeting.html. A receipt will be
issued via Paypal. We will also send you a tax
invoice confirming your registration.
Direct Bank Transfer to FACTA Inc.
BSB: 063000
Account Number: 11926866
We will also send you a tax invoice confirming
your registration.
Pharmacology Workshop is $110 inc GST for all persons.
Onsite - day registrations for Pharmacology workshop will be $150 inc GST and
may be limited - please register early.
Cancellations: All cancellations must be notified in writing to the Conference Organiser (secretary@facta.org.au).
No refunds will be given after this 1/07/2011, but you may substitute another delegate.
Print Form
Page 23

TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
Detection of
Drugs of Abuse in
Emergency Hospital,
Mansoura University
Abd el-Aziz Ghanem 1 and Raafat Mandour 2
1Forensic Med. and Clin. Toxic. Department, Faculty
of Medicine, Mansoura University, Egypt
2Toxicology Lab, Emergency Hospital, Mansoura
University, Egypt
mandourraafat@yahoo.com
Abstract
Drugs have played a major role in defining the sub cultural
and counter cultural influences in society. The pervasive
availability of psychotropic chemicals has profoundly
altered the cultural environment and can causes a
direct physiological and psychological change in the
body. The study was conducted on patients (n=390) with
acute poisoning by some drugs of abuse (Cannabis,
benzodiazepines, barbiturates, opiates and ethyl alcohol).
They were admitted to poison unit, emergency hospital,
Mansoura University during the period from Nov 2001
to April 2005. In this study all patients were subjected for
detection of drugs of abuse in urine by EMIT system and
Gas Chromatography / Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) for
confirmation of the obtained results. The study showed
that approximately 75% of patients were encountered in
the age group 20–40 years. Also, the study revealed that
the majority of patients were of low and moderate social
classes. Cannabis was the first abused drug (37.69%)
followed by opioids (27.18%).
Female patients were likely to abuse benzodiazepines
(57.14%). The study revealed that the percentages of
positive urine samples by EMIT were; (27.18%, 14.87%, 11.54%
9.74% and 1.79%), for cannabis, opiates, benzodiazepines,
barbiturates and ethyl alcohol, respectively and by GC/
MS were; 16.15%, 10.25%, 8.97% and 8.46% for cannabis,
benzodiazepines, barbiturates and opiates, respectively.
It is recommended that, immunoassay technique should
be done on all urine samples of addicts and better to be
confirmed using GC/MS. Also, continuous health education
and prevention programs concerning health hazards of
drug abuse among adolescents and young adults are
highly indicated.
Keywords: Patients, Drugs, EMIT, GC/MS
Introduction
Drug abuse is defined as the use of an illicit drug outside
legitimate medical practice [17]. There are a wide variety
of drugs and substances of abuse according to the world
health organization inducing dependence include the
following; opiates, sedatives hypnotics as barbiturates and
benzodiazepine etc, alcohol, amphetamines, cocaine,
Page 24
cannabis, hallucinogens as LSD….etc, volatile solvents/
inhalants as glue…etc and others like tobacco, [22].
There are several factors that have been found to be
associated with drug abuse. These factors are related to
the drug concerned, the abuser׳s personality, habit, and
the environment that favors the drug culture, [23, 11].
Human beings have looked for these drugs to make life
more pleasure and to avoid or decrease pain, discomfort
and frustration [14]. Drug toxicity tests are most commonly
performed on urine, since most drugs and their metabolites
are excreted in urine in higher concentration than that in
blood and because tests in urine are inexpensive and rapid.
Immunoassay techniques such as the enzyme multiplied
immunoassay technique (EMIT) are commonly used for
drug screening techniques in part because they are rapid
and require a small amount of samples. The first use of EMIT
for the screening urine for drugs of abuse was reported by
[16]. Since that time, EMIT have seen ever increasing usage
and toxicological laboratories offer an extensive service
in the investigations of drugs of abuse and other poisons.
The standard procedure for toxicological analysis requires
the collection of both blood and urine samples [9]. It has
not been possible to directly analyze whole blood by EMIT,
due to the high background absorbance level [18]. Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) is one of
the most specific tools for drug testing with high sensitivity
[8]. The present work aimed to detect the types of drugs
taken by overdose among patients from the laboratory
point of view.
Material and Methods
Patients
This study was conducted on patients (n=390) of acute
poisoning by some drugs of abuse who were admitted to
poison unit at emergency hospital, Mansoura University
during the period from the beginning of Nov 2001 to the
end of April 2005.
Methods
In this study, data were collected as regards:
- Biosocial data: age, sex, social class, smoking habit and
working status.
- Detection of drug abuse in urine samples by EMIT system.
A urine sample was taken from every patient immediately
on admission and before initiation of treatment, the cut off
concentrations of drugs of abuse tested was: opiates (300
ng/ml), barbiturates (200 ng/ml), benzodiazepines (200 ng/
ml) and cannabinoids (50 ng/ml) in case of EMIT and (15
ng/ml) in case of GC/MS as well as ethyl alcohol. Positive
results obtained were confirmed using GC/MS analysis
(Hewllet Packard, 6890 series).
Statistical analysis
The quantitative data were presented as mean ± standard
deviation and the qualitative data were presented as
number and percentage.
Results
The study entailed 390 patients of acute poisoning
by drugs of abuse admitted to poison unit at
emergency hospital, Mansoura University during
the period from Nov 2001 to April 2005.
Age and sex:
The age of patients ranged between 15–50 years with a
mean age 25.72±7.05. The study showed that approximately
half the patients were encountered in the age group 20

patients. As regards sex, the present study revealed that
males outnumbered females (92.8% and 7.2% respectively)
with a sex ratio 12.9:1, Table (1).
Table 1: Patients (n=390) with drug abuse overdose
by age and sex
Male Female Total
Age group No % No % No %
15-
20-
30-
40-50
42
205
90
25
11.60
56.63
24.86
6.91
-
15
13
-
-
53.57
46.43
-
42
220
103
25
10.77
56.41
26.41
6.41
Total 362 100.0 28 100.0 390 100.0
Mean ± SD * 27.57±7.56 23.87±6.54 25.72±7.05
SD *: Standard Deviation
Type of drug abuse overdose:
In the present study cannabis was the first abused drug
(37.69 %), opiates was the second drug abused by patients
(27.18%) followed by depressants (27.18%) whether of the
benzodiazepine group (13.59%) or the barbiturate group
(13.59%) and finally ethyl alcohol constituted (7.95%), Table
(2). The study showed that female (n=28) were likely to
abuse benzodiazepines (57.14%), the remaining abused;
cannabis (17.86 %), barbiturates (17.86%) and opiates
(7.14%), Table (3).
Type of drug abuse overdose, occupation and social class:
The study demonstrated that cannabis abusers were more
likely to be students and unemployed (70.75% and 27.21%
TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
respectively) where about two thirds of them were of low
social class. Benzodiazepines abusers were more likely
to be unemployed and housewives (56.6% and 24.53%
respectively). They were of moderate and low social class
(58.49% and 35.85% respectively).
The majority of barbiturates abusers were of low and
moderate social class (60.38% and 32.07% respectively).
Again they were more likely to be unemployed and
students (54.72% and 39.62% respectively), Tables (4, 5).
Detection of drug abuse in urine samples:
In the present study urine samples were collected from
patients. Each urine sample was screened for cannabinoids,
opiates, benzodiazepines, barbiturates and ethyl alcohol.
Immunoassay technique was used using EMIT system.
The study revealed that the percentages of positive urine
samples were; (27.18%, 14.87%, 11.54% 9.74% and 1.79), for
cannabis, opiates, benzodiazepines, barbiturates and ethyl
alcohol, respectively, Table (6). Positive results obtained by
EMIT system were confirmed by GC/MS which revealed
that the percentages of cannabis, benzodiazepines,
barbiturates and opiates were; 16.15%, 10.25%, 8.97% and
8.46% respectively, Table (7).
Discussion
Most drugs of abuse are detectable by immunoassays,
including amphetamine, opiate, barbiturate,
benzodiazepine, cocaine, alcohol, P-C-P and cannabinoid.
Once the urine sample has been identified as testing positive
by a screening test, the specimen is retested with a more
specific confirmatory test. Drug detection in urine depends
to a great extent on the dose, duration of drug use and
Table 2: Patients (n=390) with drug abuse overdose by type of drug abuse and age
Age group
Type of drug
abuse overdose
15-20
No %
20-30
No %
30-40
No %
40-50
No %
Total
No %
Cannabis 15 36 84 38.2 34 33 14 56.7 147 37.69
Opiates 11 24.9 65 29.6 25 23.7 5 21.3 106 27.18
Benzodiazepines 9 21.3 18 8.2 23 22.1 3 10 53 13.59
Barbiturates 5 12.9 36 16.5 12 11.6 - - 53 13.59
Ethyl alcohol 2 4.9 17 7.5 9 9.6 3 12 31 7.95
Total 42 100 220 100 103 100 25 100 390 100
Table 3: Patients (n=390) with drug abuse overdose by type of drug
abuse and sex
Type of drug Males Females Total
abuse overdose No % No % No %
Cannabis 142 39.23 5 17.86 147 37.69
Opiates 104 28.73 2 7.14 106 27.18
Benzodiazepines 37 10.22 16 57.14 53 13.59
Barbiturates 48 13.26 5 17.86 53 13.59
Ethyl alcohol 31 8.56 - - 31 7.95
Total 362 100 28 100 390 100
Table 4: Patients (n=390) with drug abuse overdose by type of drug abuse and occupation
Type of drug abuse
overdose
Unemployed Students Housewives Total
No % No % No % No %
Cannabis 104 70.75 40 27.21 3 2.04 147 100
Opiates 45 42.45 59 55.66 2 1.89 106 100
Benzodiazepines 30 56.6 10 18.87 13 24.53 53 100
Barbiturates 29 54.72 21 39.62 3 5.66 53 100
Ethyl alcohol 17 54.84 14 45.16 - - 31 100
Total 225 57.7 144 36.92 21 5.38 390 100
Page 25

TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
time sampling. On the light of the results obtained through
the study made on the patients, the mean patients’ age
was 25.72±7.05; Table (1).This is in accordance with [1] who
reported in their study that a lower mean age was 24.96 ±
9.47 years and [7] who recorded in his study that a higher
mean age was 29.38 ± 8.73 years.
The study showed that (82.8%) of the patients were
encountered in the age group 20-40 years, Table (1). [2]
Reported that (75%) of addicts were in the age group 20-40
years. This is the period of active life, work and responsibilities
with more liability for exposure to stress and fear of
failure, so they wrongly belief that drugs are considered
the way to show their rejection of social standards and
established ways of living [13]. The adolescents (15-
20) years accounted for (10.77 %) of the patients, [21]
explained the reasons of drug intake by adolescents to
be due to sense of emptiness, emotional and rational
difficulties associated with crises of adolescence as well
as to establish their individually and independence. [15]
Stated that drug abuse among adolescents and young
adults impairs normal maturation and development, as
well impair judgment and has adverse effects on mental
and physical functioning, in addition to potentiation of
impulse and violent behavior. [12] Stated that there is
growing evidence that human adolescence is a period
of increased biological vulnerability to the addictive
effects of psychoactive substances. As regards sex, males
outnumbered females (92.8 % and 7.2% respectively),
Table (1). The great predominance of males over females
was reported by [19] and [10]. This predominance of males
could be attributed to the fact that women experience
more social disapproval of substance use and substance
use is more stigmatized in women than men [5].
Page 26
Table 5: Patients (n=390) with drug abuse overdose by type of
drug abuse and social class
The study revealed that most of patients were smokers;
this could be attributed to the fact that cigarette smoking
paved the way for substance abuse disorders. This
consistent with study done by [4] they stated that cigarette
smoking is an important risk factor associated with drug/
substance abuse.
This study demonstrated that only few of patients were
married and the majority of them were singles, this explain
that single adolescents are immature and emotionally
unstable and may escape problems through drug abuse
while marriage plays a role in maturation of personality
with sense of responsibility for home and children. The study
revealed that more than 50 % of patients started drug
abuse in the age group 20 < 30 years and the remaining
percentage in other age groups. [24] Reported a mean
age of starting abuse of 16.26 ± 1.11 years. In the present
study cannabis was the first abused drug (37.69 %), Table
(2). The same finding was reported by [3]. Patients with
ethyl alcohol adulterated with methyl alcohol poisoning
were more likely to be males in the age group 20-30 years.
The study showed that female (n=28) were likely to
abuse benzodiazepines (57.14%), Table (3). The study
demonstrated that cannabis abusers were more likely
to be students and unemployed (70.75% and 27.21%)
respectively, where about two thirds of them were of low
social class. The same finding was in agreement with the
study of [3]. Benzodiazepines abusers were more likely
to be unemployed and housewives (56.6% and 24.53%)
respectively. They were of moderate and low social class
(58.49% and 35.85%) respectively.
The majority of barbiturates abusers were of low and
moderate social class (60.38% and 32.07%) respectively.
Again they were more likely to be unemployed and
Social class
Total
Type of drug Low Moderate High
abuse overdose No % No % No % No %
Cannabis 75 51.02 42 28.57 30 20.41 147 100
Opiates 70 66.04 20 18.87 16 15.09 106 100
Benzodiazepines 19 35.85 31 58.49 3 5.66 53 100
Barbiturates 32 60.38 17 32.07 4 7.55 53 100
Ethyl alcohol 10 32.26 5 16.13 16 51.61 31 100
Total 206 52.82 115 29.49 69 17.69 390 100
Table 6: Percentages of positive urine samples of abuse drugs
(n=390) by EMIT system
Type of drug abuse
overdose
Cut off
ng/ml
No of
urine
samples
EMIT system
Positive
No %
Cannabis 50 147 106 27.18
Opiates 300 106 58 14.87
Benzodiazepines 200 53 45 11.54
Barbiturates 200 53 38 9.74
Ethyl alcohol - 31 7 1.79
Total 390 254

Table 7: Confirmatory tests by GC/MS for EMIT positive drugs (n=254)
Type of drug abuse
overdose
students (54.72% and 39.62%) respectively. This could be
attributed to the low price and easy availability of these
drugs as they are used in the treatment of other disorders.
On the other hand, (54.84%) of ethyl alcohol adulterated
with methyl alcohol intoxicated patients were unemployed,
where (51.61%) of them were of high social class, Tables
(4, 5). The study revealed that the percentages of positive
urine samples by EMIT were; (27.18%, 14.87%, 11.54%,
9.74% and 1.79%), for cannabis, opiates, benzodiazepines,
barbiturates and ethyl alcohol, respectively, Table (6).
Positive results obtained by EMIT system were confirmed by
GC/MS which revealed that the percentages of cannabis,
benzodiazepines, barbiturates and opiates were; 16.15%,
10.25%, 8.97% and 8.46% respectively, Table (7).
Use of certain marketed urine adulterants designed to
hide the use of illicit drugs (e.g., marijuana, cocaine)
may also cause patients to test negative for opiates.
Common methods of hiding drug use include volume
loading, adding adulterants to the specimen, substitution
with a clean specimen, or the use of urine “concentrate,”
to which water is added [20, 6]. In negative samples,
detection of lower concentrations leads to problem in the
toxicological interpretation of the result, because passive
smoking must be considered. It must be remembered
that negative results of other drugs obtained by GC/MS
doesn’t mean that those drugs weren’t ingested, only they
weren’t detected due to their concentrations were below
the sensitivity range of the assay used or the sampling time
wasn’t optimal. Thus GC/ MS analysis help to solve the false
positive results obtained by EMIT.
Conclusion
The data of the present work revealed that some drugs
of abuse are exist in our life, so adolescents and young
adults are really in danger. Presence of these drugs has
a serious effect on man health (mental and physical
functioning), consequently his environment. The analytical
and distribution data obtained in this work will be useful for
the toxicologists working in this field.
Recommendations
Total
No of
urine
samples
positive
urine
samples
By EMIT
GC/MS
Positive
No %
Cannabis 147 106 63 16.15
Opiates 106 58 33 8.46
Benzodiazepines 53 45 40 10.25
Barbiturates 53 38 35 8.97
Ethyl alcohol 31 7 - -
Total 390 254 171
From the previous study, the following recommendations
are suggests:
1-Continuous health education and prevention programs
concerning health hazards of drug abuse among
adolescents and young adults and the importance of
seeking early treatment.
2-Development of school and university programs designed
to assist adolescents and young adults in developing
problem solving and coping with stresses, conflicts and
difficulties, instead of escaping to drugs abuse.
TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
3-A screening immunoassay technique should be done
on urine samples periodically at least for students and
better to be confirmed using gas chromatography/ mass
spectrometry as the later is more specific for drug testing
with high sensitivity.
References
[1]Abdel-Megid, LA. M. and Salem, E.M., Trends in the pattern of acute
poisoning in Alexandria poison centre in 1994. Proceedings 3rd . Cong.
Toxicology. Dev. Countries, Cairo, Egypt, Nov. (1996)19-23, 1:237-250.
[2]Abdel-Megid, LA.M; Fouad, A.A; Seif, E.A. and Mohamed, O., A
study of the genotoxic effects of some drugs of abuse. Mansoura J.
Forensic Medicine Clin. Toxicology, 5(1) (1997): 135-149.
[3]Abdel-Moneim, W.M; Wafaa, M.F; Afaf, M.A. and Nagwa, M.A.,
Urinary screening for drug abuse among secondary students in Assuit
city. Assuit Med. J., 26(2) (2002) 25-40.
[4]Aly, F.A; El-Genidy, M.M; Mikhail, B.I. and El-Shafie, I.F., Familiarity with
and use of dependence producing substances among secondary
school students in Alexandria. Alex. J. Ped., 2(2) (1988)189-199.
[5]Brady, K.T. and Randall, C.L., Gender differences in substances use
disorders. Psych. Clin. North Am., 22(2) (1999) 241-252.
[6] Compton, P., The role of urine toxicology in chronic
opioid analgesic therapy. Pain Management Nursing, 8(4) (2007)
166- 172.
[7]El-Shafhy, A.M.K., Mood changes in the addicts. MSc thesis in
neuropsychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, 1997.
[8]El-Sohly, M.A., Practical challenges to positive drug tests for
marijuana. Clin Chem. Jul; 49 (2003) 1037-1048.
[9]Flanagan, R.J.; Braithwaite, R.A.; Brown, S.S.; Widdop, B. and De
Wolf, F.A., Basic analytical toxicology. WHO, Geneva, Macmillan/
Clays, England, 1995, PP.170-174.
[10]Kaminer, Y., Addictive disorders in adolescents. Psych. Clin. North
Am., 22(2) (1999) 275-290.
[11]Kosten, T.R., Generic substance and polydrug use disorders. In:
Psych. Tasman, A; Kay, J; Lieberman, J. A. (Eds.), Harcourt Brace and
company, Philadelphia, London; 1997, P.P. 743- 752.
[12]Kapusta, N. D. ; Plener, P.L.; Schmid, R.; Thau, K.;
Walter, H. and Lesch, O.M., Multiple substance use among
young males. Pharmacology, biochemistry and Behavior, 86(2007)
306-311.
[13]Mcdonald, D.I., Patterns of alcohol and drug use among
adolescents. Chapter 5, Churchill Livingstone, London, Edinburgh,
New York, 1987, PP, 9-43.
[14]Pradhan, S.N., Introduction. In: Drug abuse clinical and basic
aspects. Pradhan, S.N; Dutta, S.N; Barry, H; Blinick, G; Chambers, C.D;
Cheng, T.O; Cherubin, C.E. (Eds.), Mosby company, Missouri, 1997,
PP.3-11.
[15]Rexed, B; Edmondson, K; Khan, I. and Samson, R.J., Guidelines for
the control of narcotic and psychotropic substances, in the context of
the international treaties. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1984,
PP. 98-100.
[16]Rubenstein, K. E.; Schneider, R.S. and Ullman, E.F., Homogeneous
enzyme-immunoassay. A new immunochemical technique. Biochem.
Biophys. Res. Commune., 47 (1972) 848-851.
[17]Schnoll, S.H., Drug abuse, overdose, and withdrawal syndromes.
In: Textbook of critical care. Grenvik, A; Ayres, S.M; Holbrook, P.R;
Shoemaker, W.C; Abraham, E; Bellomo, R; Groeger, J.S. (Eds.), 4 th ed.,
W.B. Saunders company, Philadelphia, 2000, PP. 191-200.
[18]Slightom, E.L., The analysis of drugs in blood, bile and tissues with
an indirect homogeneous enzyme immunoassay. J. Forensic Sci.,
23(1978) 292-303.
[19]Soliman, M.; El-Rafie, M.M. and Aly, H.M., Some epidemiologic
characteristics of addicts. Proc. 3 rd Annual Kasr El-Aini Med. Cong.,
Cario, March, (1991) 12-14; 12-35.
[20]Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, Office of applied Studies. Drug Abuse
Warning Network, 2005: national estimates of drug-related
emergency department visits. DAWN Series D-29, DHS
Publication No. (SMA) 07- 4256, Rockville, M.D, 2007.
[21]Swadi, H., Drug abuse in children and adolescents, an update.
“J.ChildAdol. Psychiatr., 76 (1999) 1245-1246.
[22]World Health Organization (WHO), Drug dependence and
Alcohol- related problems. Geneva, WHO, (1990)1-12.
[23]World Health Organization, Working group on identification and
management of psychoactive substance use problems in primary
health care settings. Geneva, WHO, (1997)1-14.
[24]Yamamah, G.A.N, A longitudinal study of substance abuse and its
effects on organ function of adolescents. Med., J. Cairo Univ., 71(2)
(2003) Suppl: 42-52.
Page 27

TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
Page 28
Guidelines for
Young Scientists
Committee Awards
The TIAFT Young Scientist Committee has recently updated
the guidelines for the Young Scientist Committee Awards to
provide a fairer scientific evaluation of submitted abstracts
and papers. Please find the most recent guidelines below
with changes highlighted in red.
Eligibility for TIAFT YSC Awards
To be eligible for any of the 3 prizes:
1. The candidate must be the first author of the
oral/poster abstract or the scientific paper;
2. The candidate, or one of his/her coauthors,
must be a TIAFT member;
3. The candidate must not be a
member of the TIAFT YSC;
4. Candidates working in the same organization
as a TIAFT YSC member are eligible;
5. For the oral/poster abstract, the candidate
must not be older than 40 years on
the last day of the TIAFT meeting;
6. For the best scientific paper, the candidate
must not be older than 40 years on the 1st Jan
of the corresponding year, and the article
must have been published in the period of
one month before the last TIAFT meeting until
the deadline for the entries of the current
TIAFT meeting, with the condition that the
paper needs to be at least e-published and
available to the scientific community;
7. Only one entry is allowed per applicant. The
applicant must choose either a poster, oral, or
published paper for consideration. Only one
choice is allowed to allow for the awards to be
shared amongst all qualified young scientists.
8. Oral, poster, or paper presentations that include
a member of the TIAFT YSC as a co-author may
still be submitted for consideration of an award;
however, the co-author that is a TIAFT YSC
member will be excluded from judging that entry.
9. The candidate must submit his/her abstract or
manuscript to the YSC at least one month prior to
the commencement of the annual TIAFT meeting.
10. The candidate must not be a TIAFT YSC
award recipient from a previous year.
1. Oral Presentations
Abstracts for the best oral presentation must be submitted to
the TIAFT YSC President Dr. Frank Peters (Frank.Peters@med.
uni-jena.de) and Secretary Ms. Madeline Montgomery
(Madeline.Montgomery@ic.fbi.gov) by email.
All submissions must be received by the TIAFT YSC one month
prior to the commencement of the annual TIAFT meeting. This
gives the committee enough time to collate and distribute the
submissions to other TIAFT YSC members for consideration.
Once you have received confirmation from the
organizing committee of the annual TIAFT meeting that
your oral presentation has been accepted, you should
immediately submit your abstract to the TIAFT YSC. The
abstract submitted to the TIAFT YSC must not differ from
the abstract accepted for the meeting or it will be subject
to disqualification. Late entries will not be accepted.
The YSC will consider a total of 15 candidates for oral
presentations each year. In the event that more than 15
abstracts for oral presentations are received in a given
year, the YSC committee will review all abstracts and
evaluate them for the following:
1. Scientific content (Score of 1-5)
2. Impact of the work on the field of
forensic toxicology (Score of 1-3)
3. Clarity (Score of 1-2)
The scores from each TIAFT YSC member will be tallied for
all abstracts. The 15 abstracts with the highest scores will
be chosen as candidates for the oral presentation award.
All young scientists who have submitted an abstract for
an oral presentation will be notified if their abstract is one
of the 15 being considered for the YS oral presentation
award before the start of the annual TIAFT meeting.
All oral presentations that are being considered for
consideration for the award will be announced by the
moderator of the session prior to the actual presentation.
This enables the audience to be informed that the upcoming
presentation is to be assessed by the TIAFT YSC for Best Oral
Presentation.
2. Award Assessment Criteria
- Oral Presentation
The award for best oral presentation is based on a number
of criteria and scored in each of the following categories:
1. Knowledge of subject material (i.e., Did
the presenter include relevant information?
Did they demonstrate an understanding
of the topic? Did the author demonstrate
advanced understanding or include any
original scientific content/approach?)
2. Structure of presentation (i.e., Was there a logical
structure to the presentation? Could the sequence
of information and ideas be easily followed?)
3. Use of audio/visual material (i.e., Was audio/
visual material appropriately used? Were
presentation slides high quality and legible?)
4. Pace and timing, delivery style (i.e., Did
the candidate keep to the agreed time
limit? Was the delivery well-paced? Did
the young scientist speak clearly?)

5. Ability to answer/respond to questions
(i.e., Could the young scientist answer
questions on the topic?)
All five categories are scored out of a maximum of 10 points
for each category. An average of all scored categories
is taken. The highest average scores by all committee
members present at the meeting determine the winner for
the Best Oral Presentation.
3. Poster Presentations
Abstracts for the best poster presentation must be submitted
to the TIAFT YSC President Dr. Frank Peters (Frank.Peters@
med.uni-jena.de) and Secretary Dr. Madeline Montgomery
(Madeline.Montgomery@ic.fbi.gov) by email.
All submissions must be received by the TIAFT YSC one
month prior to the commencement of the annual TIAFT
meeting. This gives the committee enough time to collate
and distribute the submissions to other TIAFT YSC members
for consideration.
Once you have received confirmation from the
organizing committee of the annual TIAFT meeting that
your poster presentation has been accepted, you should
immediately submit your abstract to the TIAFT YSC. The
abstract submitted to the TIAFT YSC must not differ from
the abstract accepted for the meeting or it will be subject
to disqualification. Late entries will not be accepted.
The YSC will consider a total of 15 candidates for poster
presentations each year. In the event that more than 15
abstracts for poster presentations are received in a given
year, the YSC committee will review all abstracts and
evaluate them for the following:
1. Scientific content (Score of 1-5)
2. Impact of the work on the field of
forensic toxicology (Score of 1-3)
3. Clarity (Score of 1-2)
The scores from each TIAFT YSC member will be tallied for
all abstracts. The 15 abstracts with the highest scores will be
chosen as candidates for the poster presentation award.
All young scientists who have submitted an abstract for a
poster presentation will be notified if their abstract is one
of the 15 being considered for the YS poster presentation
award before the start of the annual TIAFT meeting.
All poster presentations that have been submitted for
consideration for the award will be identified as such by
the TIAFT YSC prior to the actual presentation. This enables
the audience to be informed that a marked poster is to be
assessed by the TIAFT YSC for Best Poster Presentation.
4. Award Assessment Criteria
- Poster Presentation
The award for best poster presentation is based on a similar
set of criteria to the oral award and scored in each of the
following categories:
1. Knowledge of subject material (i.e., Did the
presentation include relevant information? Did it
demonstrate advanced understanding or include
any original scientific content/approach?)
I
TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
2. Structure of poster (i.e., Was there a logical
structure to the poster presentation?
Could the sequence of information
and ideas be easily followed?)
3. Poster material (i.e., Was poster material
appropriately used? Was the poster presentation
of high quality, legibility and clarity?)
4. Ability to answer/respond to questions (i.e., Could
the presenter answer questions on the topic? Did
they demonstrate an understanding of the topic?)
All four categories are scored out of a maximum of 10 points
for each category. An average of all scored categories
is taken. The highest average scores by all committee
members present at the meeting determine the winner for
the Best Poster Presentation.
5. Best Published Paper Award
For the best published paper award a pdf version of
the original paper must be submitted to the TIAFT YSC
President Dr. Frank Peters (Frank.Peters@med.uni-jena.
de) and Secretary Dr. Madeline Montgomery (Madeline.
Montgomery@ic.fbi.gov) by email.
For the best published paper award, the candidate is not
required to attend the annual meeting; although attendance
is encouraged, if possible. All submissions must be received
by the TIAFT YSC one month prior to the commencement of
the annual TIAFT meeting to allow the committee enough
time to collate and distribute the submissions to other TIAFT
YSC members for consideration. Two bound volumes of all
the papers (prepared by the TIAFT YSC Secretary) will be
available at the registration desk of the annual meeting for
perusal by all TIAFT meeting attendees. There is no limit to
the number of papers that the YSC will consider for the Best
Published Paper award. Late entries will not be accepted.
6. Award Assessment Criteria
- Best Published Paper
The award for best published paper is based on the following
categories:
1. Scientific content (i.e., Did the authors
demonstrate advancement in the understanding
of a discipline in forensic toxicology? Does the
paper include any original scientific content/
approach etc? Does it contribute to the
forensic toxicology knowledge database?)
2. Structure of the paper (i.e., Was there a logical
structure to the published paper? Could the
sequence of information and analyses be
easily followed? Does the discussion achieve
its purpose? Are the conclusions justified?
Is the paper adequately referenced?)
Both categories are scored out of 10 and a total out of 20
is scored. The paper with the highest average score by
all committee members present at the meeting will be
determined to be the winner for the Best Published Paper
Award.
Page 29

TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
Internet based computer
Page 30
processing of thin-
layer chromatography
data in systematic
toxicological analysis
Rafael Linden* and Estefânio Kellermann
Health Sciences Institute, Universidade Feevale, Rodovia RS
239 n. 2755, Novo Hamburgo, RS, Brazil, CEP 93352-000
*Email: rafael.linden@feevale.br
Phone: 55-51-35868800
Fax: 55-51-35868800
Keywords: systematic toxicological analysis; substance
identification; database retrieval; list length; thin layer
chromatography
Introduction
Systematic toxicological analysis (STA), defined as the
undirected search for a toxicological relevant substance
whose presence is uncertain and whose identity is unknown
[1], still represents a major challenge for every clinical and
forensic toxicological laboratory. The STA approach relays
in comparing data gathered on the questioned sample
against a comprehensive database until only one substance
remains in the candidate list [1,2]. In this process, the most
critical factors are the specificity and reproducibility of the
identification parameters and the size and appropriateness
of the database [2]. An elegant approach in STA is the
combination of classification and identification methods
resulting in multidimensional identification parameters,
increasing their identification power, especially when the
combined methods present low correlation [1,2].
Several approaches have been described to assess the
identification of substances in general unknown cases,
mostly based on mass spectrometric methods, as LC-MS/MS
[3-5] and LC-TOF [6-8], along with the more established GC-
MS [9]. However, the need for more simple and inexpensive
methods for substance identification still remains, especially
in Developing Countries. Thin layer chromatographic (TLC)
is currently used in many laboratories worldwide as the main
analytical technique, mainly due to its operational simplicity
and low cost. Despite the development of advances in
the performance of TLC for STA, like two-dimensional and
overpressured elution and scanning densitometry [10,11],
the use of classical and well standardized thin-layer
chromatographic systems for which extensive databases
are available still remains as a valuable alternative.
As the discrimination power of a single TLC system is poor,
de Zeeuw et al. [1] previously demonstrated the gain in
identification capabilities of TLC when data obtained
in several systems are combined. Moreover, a marked
increase in the identification power was achieved with
the use of proper color reactions on the chromatographic
plate [1,12,13]. Despite the strong theoretical background
provided in the previous work, no extensive evaluation of
this approach to biological systems and with the use of a
large database has been published.
The use of TLC in STA is limited by the complex
evaluation of the data when multiple systems with
varying adsorbents and eluents are employed. In fact,
the proper mathematical evaluation of these data
hardly could be done without computer support.
Recently, our group developed an internet accessible
software to the probabilistic identification of substances
in STA [14], whose application to urine samples analyzed
by GC and HPLC was recently accessed [15]. In the
present work, the same approach was evaluated on its
applicability and performance in the identification of drugs
in urine samples based on retardation factors on the widely
accessible thin layer chromatography associated to color
reactions on the plate.
Experimental
Reagents and solutions
Drug standards were provided from various pharmaceutical
companies or purchased from Cerilliant (Round Rock,
USA). Ethyl acetate, methanol, concentrated ammonia,
formaldehyde, sulphuric acid, ammonium metavanadate,
potassium iodide, iodine, bismuth subnitrate, glacial acetic
acid and hydrochloric acid were all obtained from Merck
(Darmstadt, Germany). Ultrapure water was obtained by
means of an Elga Purelab Ultra SC apparatus from Elga
Labwater (High Wycombe, UK). Concentrated solutions or
drug powders were diluted with methanol to obtain working
solutions at 100 µg/mL. Mandelin’s reagent was prepared
dissolving 200 mg ammonium metavanadate in 250 mL
concentrated sulphuric acid. Modified Dragendorff’s
reagent was prepared by the dissolution of 5 g potassium
iodide, 2 g iodine and 0.8 g bismuthsubnitrate in 10.5 mL
glacial acetic acid, 0.5 mL 36% hydrochloric acid and 239
mL ultra pure water. Mixtures of references substances for
hRfc calculations were prepared in methanol, at 2 mg/mL.
Test samples
Drug-free human urine was obtained from volunteers and
stored at -20 ºC until analysis. Thirty-five basic drugs were
added to blank urine in order to evaluate the performance
of STAS. Test samples were prepared adding 500 µL of
working methanolic solutions of drugs to blank urine until a
final volume of 5 mL (final drug concentration of 10 µg/mL).

TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
Sample preparation
Urine samples (5 mL) were extracted at pH 9 using Toxitubes
A ® of the formaldehyde fumes and dipped slowly in and out
from Varian (Lake Forest, USA). After agitation for 10 min
and centrifugation at 3500 rpm for 5 min at ambient
temperature, the organic layer was transferred to a clean
glass tube and evaporated to dryness at 45 °C under a
gentle stream of air. For analysis with TLC systems 1, 2 and
3, the residues were reconstituted with 50 μL of methanol
and 10 μL were spotted into TLC plates. For analysis with
Toxilab A system, the organic layer was evaporated at an
aluminum cup together with a small adsorbent disk, which
was inserted on the chromatographic sheets, according to
manufactor’s instructions.
of Mandelin’s reagent and allowed to drip dry over open
jar for 20-30 seconds. Color stage II: the plate was dipped
in water once, and then holded above the jar for several
seconds to let the colors develop. Color stage III: the plate
was redipped several times in the same jar of water and
then observed under UV-light (366 nm). Color stage IV: the
plate was placed in modified Dragendorff’s reagent and
dipped in and out several times. Colors observed after
each stage are assigned to a numerical code, from 0 to 9,
using a color wheel as described by de Hegge et al. [16].
The color and codes used were: code 0 for white, code 1
for yellow, code 2 for orange, code 3 for brown, code 4 for
red, code 5 for purple, code 6 for blue, code 7 for green,
Thin-layer chromatographic analysis
code 8 for green blue and code 9 for black. When no spot
Extracted samples were analyzed by four different TLC
systems. Systems 1 and 2 used silica GF 254 as adsorbent, in
10 x 10 cm glass plates. Development distance was 7 cm.
is observed in a given color stage, the value according to
the background is given, namely white (0) in color stages I,
II and IV and black (9) in color stage III.
System 3 used silica GF 254 impregnated with 0.1 M KOH
as adsorbent, also in 10 x 10 cm glass plates. The plates
were purchased from Machery Nagel (Düren, Germany).
Toxi-Lab A system employed silica in a glass fiber matrix
as adsorbent. Corrected retardation factors (hRfc) were
calculated according to de Zeeuw et al. [12], using a
mixture of reference substances. For hRfc calculations,
database and measured hRf of the bracketing reference
substances A and B must be informed, as well as the hRf
of the unknowns (Equation 1). System 1 used a mixture of
ethyl acetate-methanol-conc. ammonia (85:10:5, v/v)
as eluent, with atenolol, codeine, carbamazepine and
diazepam as reference substances and a search window
Reproducibility of analytical data
Solutions containing caffeine, carbamazepine,
chlorpromazine, citalopram, clomipramine, cocaine,
dextromethorphan, diazepam, imipramine and
nortriptyline, all at 2 mg/mL in methanol, were analysed in
20 non-consecutive days. Corrected hRf were obtained,
after proper calibration. The results were compared with
database values and Averaged Mean Absolute Deviation
(AMAD), defined as the average of the mean absolute
difference of the measured and the database values, as
well as Standard Deviation (SD) were calculated for all
substances using either uncorrected as corrected hRf.
of 11 hRfc units. System 2 used methanol as eluent, with
atenolol, amitriptyline, amiodarone and nortriptyline as
reference substances and a search window of 8 hRfc units.
System 3 used a mixture of cyclohexane:toluene:diethyla
mine (75-15-10, v/v) as eluent, with maprotyline, codeine,
amitriptyline and diazepam as reference substances and
a search window of 8 hRfc units. Toxi-Lab A system used
a mixture of ethyl acetate-methanol-water (87-3-1.5, v/v)
as eluent to which 10 to 20 µL concentrated ammonia
were added. In Toxi-Lab A the reference substances
were strychnine, amitriptyline and methaqualone and a
search window of 9 hRfc units was applied. Only system
2 was run on unsaturated tanks. During chromatographic
development, the laboratory temperatures ranged from 21
to 24 °C and relative humidities from 38 to 61%.
Computer based substance identification
The Systematic Toxicological Analysis System (STAS) software
contains hRfc values for 857 compounds on different
TLC systems [1,2] as well as codified colors obtained
after a standardized visualization procedure for this set
of substances [16]. Moreover, GC and HPLC data are
also available in STAS. The software calculates corrected
retardation factors (hRfc) according to de Zeeuw et al.
(Equation 1) [12].
The identification of substances by STAS is based on a
probabilistic approach, according to Hartstra et al. [2] and
follows the assumption that the identification parameter of
a given substance x , due to measurement errors, is normally
ij
distributed around the mean x with a measurement error
j
σ. The α value was set at 0.05 for calculation of Mean
List Lengths (MLL), according to Scheepers et al. [17]. As
an alternative to simplify calculations, a z transformation
f f
hRfc B hRfc
A)
() can (
be employed, and p can be obtained from a two-
(xij)
Ach )
RXch () R hRf X
(A hRf
)()(
hRf B hRf
A)()(
sided normal distribution table. Before calculating the
Equation 1 probabilities, STAS performs a pre-selection step where only
After development, plates were dried and compounds inside a search window of 3 times the standard
submitted to four sequential visualization stages, as deviation of the evaluated parameter (containing 99.7%
follows. Color stage I: the plate was inserted in a jar with of the true possible candidates according to normal
formaldehyde solution for 2 minutes. After, the plate was distribution concepts) have their identification probabilities
warmed on a hot plate for 5-10 seconds to remove some calculated.
Page 31

TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
For the similarities calculations of color codes obtained
after standardized reactions on the plate, Hegge et
al. [16] used the minimum distance d between the
ij
colors of two substances i and j in the circle, which can
be calculated according to Equation 2, where n is the
c
number of the colors in the wheel. After d has been
ij
calculated, comparing the unknown spot against all
substances in the hRfc search window, the probability of
observing a CC that differs by distance of the informed
color can be calculated. The mean standard deviation of
the color codes was previously determined as 0.11 to 0.38
[x], and then a search window of ± 1 CC unit was arbitrarily
determined.
Page 32
Equation 2
When p(x ) is multiplied by 100, the Percentile
ij
Similarity Index (%SI) is obtained and this figure represents
a match between the value found for the unknown
substance compared to the value of the reference
substance in the database. In order to calculate the
overall SI for a TLC system, the %SI of the hRfc values and
color codes were combined. According to Hartstra [2], it
was empirically established that two color codes outweigh
a single hRfc value in terms of Identification Power. Hence,
the overall of substance i in TLC system j can be
calculated from the equation 3.
Equation 3
Finally, a Percentile Final Similarity Index (%SI)
is calculated as the geometric mean of the individual
Similarity Indices for a given substance in each TLC system,
according to equation 4.
Equation 4
All possible combination of data (e.g. first
unknown spot of the first TLC system and second unknown
of the second TLC system) are subjected to combinatorial
analysis and have their overall %SI calculated, including
asymmetrical data (different number of analytical data
in each of the employed methods). In a given samples,
STAS is capable of handling multiple analytical signs from
unknown substances, at five different analytical systems,
including TLC, GC or HPLC methods.
Evaluation of the performance of the software
List lengths and composition, using %SI thresholds of 25, 45
and 65 were determined for an expanded set of 100 basic
drugs, analyzed by the methods previously described, in
methanolic solutions at 1 mg/mL. The same set of drugs
was used to calculate the MLL of selected combinations
of TLC systems, comparing against the whole database.
The spiked urine samples were also analyzed by TLC and
the obtained results were processed with STAS, yielding lists
of candidate substances and corresponding %SI. The rank
position of the spiked substance was evaluated at different
combinations of analytical systems.
Results and Discussion
The applicability of a method for STA using a probabilistic
approach is mainly dependent of the comparability of
the results with the database and of its interlaboratorial
precision, which determines the size of the search window.
One of the intrinsic limitations of TLC is poor reproducibility
when using uncorrected Rf as the identification parameter,
especially in varying environmental conditions. Previous
studies demonstrated that using a correction procedure
that allows the calculation of a corrected Rf, according to
equation 1, the measurement precision improves markedly
as well as the closeness of the measured values with the
published databases [12]. The Standard Deviation (SD)
and the Averaged Mean Absolute Deviation (AMAD)
of retardation factors of ten drugs, either with or without
correction as previously described, we determined for
10 drugs in 20 different days (Table 1). The mean AMAD
values for corrected Rf were in the range of 2.2 to 2.9,
being consistent with previous studies [18,19] and with the
selection of the search windows, defined as three times the
standard deviation of the measurements [12]. Even using
uncorrected Rf, only one measurement presented a AMAD
value outside the search window, namely imipramine
in Toxilab A system. The mean SD was in the range of 2.1
to 2.7 for corrected Rf and 2.6 to 5.6 to uncorrected Rf.
When evaluating the colors obtained at the plate after
the visualization reactions, we employed the method of
color encoding described by Hegge, et al. [16], with the
use of a color wheel, consisting of a number of colored
rectangles arranged in a circle in such a way that related
colors are adjacent to each other, which each color being
translated in a color code (CC). In STAS, the color wheel
consisting of 10 colors was chosen, because it provides a
simple and therefore rapid color encoding system with the
lowest number of errors. The reproducibility of colors was
also evaluated and no deviations in the classification of
the color codes were observed, besides some variation on
color tonalities.
The MLL when a substance’s data is compared against the
whole database using STAS was evaluated for 100 selected
basic drugs (Table 2). The best combination of the data
included hRfc from systems TLC 1, TLC 2 and TLC 3, together

Substance
with the color codes, producing a MLL of 35.1 when
comparing with a database comprised of 857 substances.
This combination of analytical data performed better than
the combination of relative retention times and maximum
UV absorption in a HPLC-DAD method, with a database of
1993 substances [15]. Despite the relative high MLL, most
of the ranked substances presented small %SI, especially
due to the large search windows, which can include up
to 20% of the whole database. The mean number of
candidate substances over different similarity thresholds
when data of 100 selected drugs were processed with
STAS is present in Table 3. A trend to shorter candidate lists
is observed with the addition of more data, with the more
effective combination of retention data of systems TLC 1,
TLC 2 and TLC 3 and color codes producing a list with a
mean of 3.1 candidates substances with %SI over 45 and
1.1 over 65 (Table 3). Also, an average reduction of 47% in
the number of candidates with %SI over 65 was observed
with the addition of the color codes to the combination of
TLC 1 and TLC 2 retention data; 20 % to the combination of
TLC 1, TLC 2 and Toxilab A retention data and 22% to the
combination of TLC 1, TLC 2 and TLC 3 retention data.
The results after processing the results of 35 spiked urine
TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
Table 1. Averaged Mean Absolute Deviation (AMAD) and standard deviation (SD) of corrected (hRfc) and uncorrected
(hRf) retardation factors (n=20)
TLC 1 TLC 2 TLC 3 Toxilab A
hRf hRfc hRf hRfc hRf hRfc hRf hRfc
AMAD SD AMAD SD AMAD SD AMAD SD AMAD SD AMAD SD AMAD SD AMAD SD
Caffeine 5.1 3.5 2.5 2.4 6.3 3.2 2.1 2.1 7.8 3.3 2.2 3.2 6.1 3.8 2.3 2.2
Carbamazepine 4.8 2.8 2.7 2.1 4.3 2.1 1.7 1.9 5.5 2.5 2.6 2.8 4.5 3.1 2.1 3.1
Chlorpromazine 5.7 2.5 3.2 3.1 3.5 1.9 1.9 1.5 6.3 2.3 2.1 2.5 5.3 2.8 2.5 2.7
Citalopram 6.1 3.1 2.9 2.2 7.3 2.5 2.5 1.8 6.5 3.4 1.9 2.8 4.2 3.5 2.2 2.3
Clomipramine 8.6 4.2 3.1 2.4 5.1 2.8 2.8 2.6 5.3 3.2 2.2 3.4 5.8 3.3 1.9 2.1
Cocaine 7.5 4.6 2.8 2.5 5.8 3.2 1.8 2.7 5.9 3.8 1.8 2.9 5.9 3.8 2.7 2.6
Dextromethorphan 7.2 2.9 3.3 1.7 7.1 2.1 3.9 1.7 7.4 2.5 3.1 2.2 6.8 2.7 2 2.1
Diazepam 9.2 3.9 2.8 3.2 3.7 2.7 3.1 2.8 6.9 4.2 1.8 2.2 4.7 3.6 2.5 1.9
Imipramine 7.3 4.1 3.2 1.9 3.9 3.3 2.2 2.1 7.1 3.5 3 3.5 9.4 3.9 2.8 2.2
Nortriptyline 6.5 3.7 2.5 2.1 4.7 2.2 1.9 1.9 5.1 3.2 1.7 1.9 3.5 3.6 1.6 1.8
Mean 6.8 3.5 2.9 2.4 5.2 2.6 2.4 2.1 6.4 3.2 2.2 2.7 5.6 3.4 2.3 2.3
Analytical systems Identification parameter Substances on
samples spiked with single drugs were evaluated, with
rank position of the spiked substances and their %SI being
presented in Table 4. The poorer identification performance
was obtained when only combined retention data in TLC
systems 1 and 2 were considered, with a mean rank position
of the spiked substance of 13.7 and range of 1 to 49, which
is clearly not acceptable for identification purposes. Better
performance was obtained when an additional retention
data, from TLC system 3, was added, with the spiked
substance achieving a mean rank position of 4.6 and range
of 1 to 16. The identification capabilities of TLC systems was
significantly improved when color reactions on the plate
where taken into consideration, with Toxilab A retention
combined to color codification producing a mean rank
position of the spiked of 4.1, superior to the combination of
three TLC systems. Moreover, the best results were obtained
when retention of three TLC systems was combined
to the color codes, showing the attractiveness of the
probabilistic approach in STA. When data of TLC systems
1, 2 and 3 together with color codes were processed in
STAS, the correct substance was identified in all samples,
with a SI% always higher than 68 (maximum 88.1%, mean
78.6%). Therefore, it is reasonable to establish an arbitrary
Table 2. Mean List Lengths (MLL) of combinations of TLC systems and comparison with previous studies
database
MLL Reference
TLC 1 + TLC 2 + Toxilab A hRfc 857 58.5 This investigation
TLC 1 + TLC 2 + Toxilab A + CR hRfc + CC 857 49.2 This investigation
TLC 1 + TLC 2 + TLC 3 hRfc 857 43.9 This investigation
TLC 1 + TLC 2 + TLC 3 + CR hRfc + CC 857 35.1 This investigation
HPLC-DAD + GC-NPD HPLC-RRT + GC-RI 1762 4.4 Linden et al. [15]
HPLC-DAD + GC-NPD HPLC-RRT + GC-RI + UVmax 1762 1.6 Linden et al. [15]
HPLC-DAD RRT + UVmax 1993 41.6 Linden et al. [15]
HPLC-DAD RRT + UV spectra 1993 1.2 Herzler et al. [20]
GC-MS RT + EI spectra 244 1.1 Demme et al. [21]
HPLC-DAD RI + UVmax 372 5.4 Maier et al. [22]
HPLC-DAD RT + UVmax 99 3.5 de Zeeuw et al. [13]
GC-MS RT + MW 99 1.1 de Zeeuw et al. [13]
Page 33

TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
Page 34
Table 3. Mean number of candidate substances over different similarity thresholds when data of
100 selected drugs were processed with STAS*
Analytical Systems %SI > 25 %SI > 45 %SI > 65
Toxilab A + CR 67.6 24.6 7.2
TLC 1 + TLC 2 28.7 11.9 4.7
TLC 1 + TLC 2 + CR 19.1 6.1 2.5
TLC 1 + TLC 2 + Toxilab A 14.2 4.5 2.1
TLC 1 + TLC 2 + Toxilab A + CR 12.1 4.1 1.7
TLC 1 + TLC 2 + TLC 3 11.7 4.2 1.4
TLC 1 + TLC 2 + TLC 3 + CR 9.9 3.1 1.1
* searching against a database with 857 substances
Table 4. Rank position of the spiked substance and similarities (%SI) obtained with STAS after analysis of 35 urine samples
Substance TLC 1 + TLC 2 TLC 1 + TLC 2 +
TLC 3
TLC 1 + TLC 2
+ CR
Toxilab A + CR TLC 1 + TLC 2
+Toxilab A +
CR
TLC 1 + TLC 2
+ TLC 3 + CR
Amitriptyline 28 (27.3) 8 (35.3) 2 (64.8) 4 (56.8) 1 (71.5) 1 (70.6)
Atenolol 6 (52.9) 5 (65.4) 1 (80.8) 2 (90.4) 1 (83.9) 1 (86.8)
Bromazepam 11 (41.7) 3 (51.6) 1 (80.8) 9 (68.2) 1 (76.4) 1 (80.2)
Caffeine 1 (63.7) 1 (62.1) 1 (86.1) 1 (90.5) 1 (87.6) 1 (85.3)
Carbamazepine 8 (52.8) 2 (54.8) 3 (80.9) 1 (79.5) 1 (56.1) 1 (81.4)
Chloroquine 2 (63.9) 1 (62.1) 1 (86.1) 3 (90.5) 1 (87.5) 1 (85.3)
Chlorpromazine 23 (27.3) 16 (31.5) 3 (64.8) 4 (68.2) 2 (65.9) 1 (68)
Cinnarizine 10 (34.1) 4 (40.1) 1 (69.9) 9 (56.8) 1 (65.3) 1 (74.3)
Citalopram 14 (38.7) 2 (36.8) 3 (70.1) 6 (46.8) 2 (73.4) 1 (71.6)
Clobazam 17 (52.9) 5 (54.8) 2 (80.9) 15 (68.2) 1 (79.7) 1 (81.8)
Clomipramine 10 (52.8) 7 (48.9) 1 (80.8) 1 (90.5) 1 (83.9) 1 (78.7)
Cocaine 5 (64.2) 2 (55.6) 1 (86.2) 15 (79.7) 1 (84.1) 1 (82.2)
Codeine 5 (34.2) 4 (41) 1 (70) 2 (68.2) 1 (69.3) 1 (74.3)
Desipramine 8 (52.9) 5 (42.5) 1 (80.8) 1 (79.9) 1 (80.5) 1 (75.2)
Dextromethorphan 15 (43.3) 1 (46.7) 1 (75.6) 1 (79.8) 1 (77) 1 (75.4)
Diazepam 35 (43.5) 4 (45.9) 3 (75.8) 19 (68.2) 3 (73.2) 1 (75.5)
Ephedrine 6 (52.8) 2 (65.4) 1 (80.8) 2 (79.8) 1 (80.5) 1 (86.8)
Flunarizine 49 (34.2) 4 (31.8) 1 (69.9) 40 (45.9) 1 (60.7) 1 (68.3)
Fluoxetine 10 (63.7) 6 (55.4) 1 (86) 1 (79.8) 1 (83.9) 1 (82.1)
Haloperidol 4 (52.8) 3 (60.4) 1 (80.8) 1 (79.8) 1 (79.8) 1 (84.5)
Hydroxychloroquine 6 (52.8) 2 (54.8) 1 (72.3) 3 (79.9) 1 (80.5) 1 (81.8)
Imipramine 15 (52.6) 9 (42.4) 1 (80.7) 1 (68.2) 1 (76.3) 1 (75.4)
Maprotyline 3 (63.8) 2 (55.4) 1 (86.1) 1 (79.8) 1 (84) 1 (75.4)
Metoclopramide 14 (43.3) 3 (52.8) 1 (75.6) 2 (68.2) 1 (73.1) 1 (80.8)
Metoprolol 22 (43.4) 5 (47.9) 1 (75.6) 3 (68.2) 1 (73.1) 1 (78.3)
Midazolam 10 (45.2) 6 (53.1) 2 (75.8) 20 (56.9) 2 (68.8) 1 (81)
Nordazepam 15 (43.6) 4 (48.2) 1 (75.8) 9 (68.2) 1 (73.2) 1 (78.4)
Nortriptyline 23 (34.2) 1 (48.9) 1 (69.9) 2 (79.8) 1 (73.1) 1 (78.8)
Paroxetine 10 (63.8) 3 (68.4) 1 (86.1) 1 (68.2) 1 (79.6) 1 (88.1)
Pimozide 44 (26.2) 10 (36.2) 1 (64) 10 (56.8) 1 (61.5) 1 (70)
Propranolol 18 (52.2) 5 (59.9) 1 (80.5) 3 (68.2) 1 (76.2) 1 (84.3)
Sertraline 17 (34.4) 10 (32) 1 (70.1) 10 (68.2) 1 (69.4) 1 (69.1)
Strychnine 9 (52.9) 12 (52.9) 1 (80.8) 1 (79.8) 1 (80.5) 1 (78.7)
Sulpiride 2 (52.8) 2 (65.4) 1 (86.8) 17 (68.2) 1 (81.8) 1 (86.8)
Trazodone 6 (34.8) 3 (45.1) 1 (70.2) 1 (79.8) 1 (73.3) 1 (74.5)
Range 1-49 (26.2-64.2) 1-16 (31.5-68.4) 1-3 (64-86.8) 1-40 (45.9-90.5) 1-3 (56.1-87.6) 1-1 (68-88.1)
Mean 13.7 (47.1) 4.6 (50) 1.3 (77.2) 4.1 (72.2) 1.1 (75.6) 1 (78.6)

identification threshold of 45 for the %SI in this particular
combination of methods, which permits to obtain lists
with a mean of 3.1 substances, even considering a large
database of 857 candidate substances (Table 3). Another
relevant point is that all tentative identifications with STAS
were based only on published data. Possibly, if a home
created database has been used, higher similarities may
be obtained. However, a major drawback is that only
substances whose data are in the database could be
identified using such a retrieval software.
The present work demonstrates the usefulness of the
probabilistic approach of substance identification in
STA with proper use of computational tools, like STAS.
Proper designed and constructed software allows
the use of simple and inexpensive TLC systems for the
identification of unknown drugs in biological samples,
using a probabilistic approach. This is the first description
of a free, internet accessible, tool for STA based on TLC
data, being capable of handling either retention and
spot colors.
Conclusions
The probabilistic approach for substance identification in
STA is valuable alternative, especially when in resource
limited settings, and can be easily implemented with
recently developed software for substance identification,
with a test version available at www.feevale.br/
toxicologia/ats. The combined use of corrected
retardation factors and color codes after standardized
reactions on the plate allowed the production of
list lengths above a threshold of 45% similar to those
obtained with more sophisticated methods, representing
a valuable alternative to resource limited laboratories.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by grants from CNPq
(472778/2009-9) and FAPERGS (0904203).
References
[1] R.A. de Zeeuw, Drug screening in biological fluids the
need for a systematic approach , J. Chromatogr. B 689
(1997) 71-79.
[2] J. Hartstra, J.P. Franke, R.A. de Zeeuw, How to
approach substance identification in qualitative
bioanalysis. J. Chromatogr. B 739 (2000) 125-137.
[3] C.A. Mueller, W. Weinmann, S. Dresen, A. Schreiber, M.
Gergov, Development of a multi-target screening analysis
for 301 drugs using a QTrap liquid chromatography/
tandem mass spectrometry system and automated
library searching, Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 19
(2005) 1332-1338.
[4] S. Dresen, J. Kempft, W. Weinmann W, Electrosprayionization
MS/MS library of drugs as database for method
development and drug identification, Forensic Sci. Int.
161 (2006) 89-91.
TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
[5] F.-L. Sauvage, F. Saint-Marcoux, B. Duretz, D. Deporte,
G. Lachatre, P. Marquet, Screening of Drugs and Toxic
Compounds with Liquid Chromatography-Linear Ion Trap
Tandem Mass Spectrometry, Clin.Chem. 52 (2006) 1735-
1742.
[6] A. Pelander, I. Ojanperä, S. Laks, I. Rasanen, E. Vuori,
Toxicological screening with formula-based metabolite
identification by liquid-chromatography/time-of-flight
mass spectrometry, Anal Chem. 75 (2003) 5710-5718.
[7] S. Ojanperä, A. Pelander, M. Pelzing, I. Krebs, E.
Vuori, I. Ojanperä, Isotopic pattern and accurate
mass determination in urine drug screening by liquid
chromatography/time-of-flight mass spectrometry, Rapid
Commun. Mass Spectrom. 20 (2006) 1161-1167.
[8] A. Polettini, R. Gottardo, J.P. Pascali, F. Tagliaro,
Implementation and performance evaluation of a
database of chemical formulas for the screening of
pharmaco/toxicologically relevant compounds in
biological samples using electrospray ionization-time-offlight
mass spectrometry, Anal. Chem. 80 (2008) 3050–3057.
[9] H.H. Maurer, Systematic toxicological analysis of drugs
and their metabolites by gas chromatography-mass
spectrometry, J. Chromatog. B 580 (1992) 3-41.
[10] I. Ojanpera, K. Goebel, E. Vuori, Toxicological drug
screening by overpressured layer chromatography. J. Liq.
Chromatogr. Relat. Technol. 22 (1999) 161-171.
[11] U. Demme, B. Ahrens, A. Klein, R. Werner, The combination
of two-dimensional thin layer chromatography and
remission spectrometry – a chromatographic technique
with high identification power for systematic toxicological
analysis. Problems Forensic Sci. 42 (2000) 64-74.
[12] R.A. de Zeeuw, J.P. Franke, F. Degel, G. Machbert, H.
Schütz, J. Wijsbeek, Thin-layer chromatographic Rf values
of toxicologically relevant substances on standardized
systems, second ed., VCH, Weinheim, 1992.
[13] R.A. de Zeeuw, J. Hartstra, J.P. Franke, Potential and
pitfalls of chromatographic techniques and detection
modes in substance identification for systematic
toxicological analysis, J. Chromatogr. A 674 (1994) 3-13.
[14] R. Linden, E. Kellermann, S. Sartori, A.A. Souto,
Identificação de substâncias em análise toxicológica
sistemática através de um sistema informatizado para
cálculo de parâmetros cromatográficos e busca em base
de dados, Quim. Nova, 30 (2007) 468-475.
[15] R. Linden, L.L. Feltraco, L.C. Comerlato, E. Kellermann,
M.V. Antunes, Computer assisted substance identification
in systematic toxicological analysis: New life for old
methods? Forensic Sci. Int. 202 (2010) e53-e60.
[16] H.F.J. Hegge, J.P. Franke, R.A. de Zeeuw, Combined
information from retardation factor (Rf) value and color
reactions on the plate greatly enhances the identification
power of thin-layer chromatography in systematic
toxicological analysis. J. Forensic Sci. 36 (1991) 1094-1101.
Page 35

1857-2010 857-2010_Flashlight_or_Drugs_dinA5_quer_mit_Geraeten_07.01.2010:Layout 1 12.01.10 09:59 Seite 1
TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
[17] P.G.A.M. Schepers, J.P. Franke, R.A. de Zeeuw, System
evaluation and substance identification in systematic
toxicological analysis by the mean list length approach.
J. Anal. Toxicol. 7 (1983) 272-278.
[18] R.A. de Zeeuw, J.P. Franke, M. van Halem, S.
Schaapman, E. Logawa, C.J.P. Siregar, Thin-layer
chromatography under tropical conditions: impact of
high temperatures and high humidities on screening
systems for analytical toxicology. J. Chromatogr. A 664
(1994) 263-270
[19] R.A. de Zeeuw, J.P. Franke, E. Dik, W. ten Dolle,
B.L. Kam, Impact of tropical conditions on thinlayer
chromatography in analytical toxicology: high
temperatures and moderate humidities. J. Forensic Sci.
37 (1992) 984-990.
[20] M. Herzler, S. Herre, F. Pragst, Selectivity of substance
identification by HPLC-DAD in toxicological analysis using
a UV spectra library of 2,682 compounds, J. Anal. Toxicol.
27 (2003) 233-242.
[21] U. Demme, B. Ahrens, A. Klein, R. Werner,
Discriminating power nearly one – ion trap GC-MS as an
ideal tool for STA, In: Proceedings of the 38 th Meeting of
TIAFT, I. Rasanen, ED, Helsinki (2001) 19-26.
Page 36
[22] R.D. Maier, M. Bogusz, Identification power of
a standardized HPLC-DAD system for systematic
toxicological analysis, J. Anal. Toxicol. 19 (1995) 79-83.
Rafael Linden was the TIAFT Young Scientist Best Paper
Award Winner 2010 and introduced to the TIAFT members
in the TIAFT bulletin Vol. 40 (3) Pages 21-22.
Flashlight or
drugs?
See clearly: drug detection solutions from Dräger.
Its a harsh fact that drug abuse in today’s society is increasing. The consequences of drug
use may often be disastrous. The Dräger DrugTest® 5000 System provides fast and accurate
on-site drug detection. This system detects substances such as opiates, cocaine, cannabinoides,
amphetamines as well as designer drugs and tranquilizers based on benzodiazepines
in oral fluid or surface samples. Ensure you can see the risks clearly. www.draeger.com

2010 Meeting of the Society
of Forensic Toxicologists
(SOFT), Richmond, Virginia,
USA, October 17-22, 2010
The SOFT Annual Meeting in Richmond, Virginia was
unforgettable as we celebrated the 40th gathering of the
Society. Nearly 1000 guests traveled from across the United
States and from around the World to present research and
method developments and share anecdotes, memories,
and laughter.
Eleven workshops were offered across a wide variety
of topics. Carl Wolf, the Workshop Coordinator, made
a herculean effort to keep 69 instructors informed of
deadlines, commitments, and requirements, assemble
handout materials, and deliver a seamless experience
for the attendees who registered for more than 980 seats.
Many thanks to Carl for his selfless and exceptional efforts!
The Scientific Program Co-Chairs, Julia Pearson and Justin
Poklis, with the assistance of many volunteer reviewers
and moderators, selected, organized, and delivered a
strong scientific program with 385 authors of 124 scientific
research abstracts for platform or poster presentations. The
program delivered material through several interpreters,
both sign language and non-English speaking. Kudos
to Julia and Justin for their competent, thoughtful, and
smooth execution of the annual scientific program and
assemblage of materials for publication!
The SOFT Student Education and Enrichment Program
(SEEP) this year targeted teachers, who in turn will pass on
forensic toxicology lessons and lab work on the principles
of forensic toxicology in post-mortem, DWI, and FUDT to
hundreds of Richmond area high school teens. Many
thanks to SSEP Chair, Alphonse Poklis and his committee
for their high energy and enthusiasm for preparing exciting
and relevant lesson plans, delivering the material in a
manner that instilled confidence, and sharing his love for
this profession to fellow educators.
TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
The Young Forensic Toxicologists enjoyed their inaugural
event in Richmond. More than 50 YFTs convened for an
interesting and relevant seminar about popular alcoholic
energy drinks and an opportunity to get to know other
forensic toxicologists. Many thanks to Teresa Gray and her
committee for coordinating this event!
To celebrate SOFT’s rich history, Sarah Carney and
Lyndsay Durham assembled 8 posters that highlighted
different areas of development in forensic toxicology and
cases. They also provided an opportunity for members
and attendees to illustrate their training path so that we
could both capture and celebrate the genealogy of
forensic toxicologists. Sarah also spent more than a year
collating information from official archives in the SOFT office
and the backs of closets and old desks and cabinets of
SOFT members to create a display that honors SOFT’s 40
Presidents and describes the development of the Society.
This treasure trove of information was an enormous project
that will continue in perpetuity and be displayed at SOFT
meetings so that we can continue to honor and discuss our
history as we move into the future. Tremendous thanks to
both Sarah and Lindsay for helping us to capture our history
so cohesively – and thank you for helping them do so!
The SOFT2010 Planning Committee would like to thank the
exhibitors for their very generous financial sponsorships that
supported so many wonderful fun events in Richmond.
Events such as the carnival atmosphere of the Medicine
Show, the historical Fun Run, and the elegant 40th
Anniversary Ruby Presidential Ball were enjoyed and
appreciated by all.
Thank you for helping to make “fun” additions to our
meeting planning so successful! Richmond was the first
year for social media such as Facebook and Twitter – in the
weeks prior to the meeting, you were visiting the Facebook
page more than 100 times per day to learn fun and weird
Richmond facts and our favorite places to eat and tour.
We also had the great new addition of student volunteers
thanks to Virginia Commonwealth University’s Forensic
Science Student Club! More than 50 of them helped
throughout the week - so thanks to Rebecca Doane and
Emily Dye for coordinating and managing them – and,
again, thank you for welcoming and encouraging them
making their experience so rich!
As the host, I want to thank the entire SOFT 2010 Planning
Committee for their countless, selfless, and tireless (or very
tired, as the case may be!) hours of commitment to attend
to the details of preparing, organizing, and delivering a
meeting that was smooth, exciting, interesting, challenging,
and a real celebration of science and philosophy. Special
heartfelt gratitude to Sue Brown, my meeting treasurer,
and Lisa Moak, my co-host – who were my support,
encouragement, and lifeline as they worked alongside me
the past several years. Many thanks to the Executive Board
for supporting and encouraging me through the planning –
I have enjoyed the opportunity to serve SOFT. And, finally,
a great thanks to you for making the Richmond meeting
rich and exciting!
See you in San Francisco!
Michelle Peace ( mrpeace@vcu.edu )
Lisa Moak ( ltarnai@aol.com )
Page 37

TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
Cannabimimetics:
Mass spectra and IR-
ATR spectra of new
compounds from the
years 2009 and 2010
Stefan Kneisel 1 , Folker Westphal 2 , Peter
Rösner 3 , Volker Brecht 4 , Andreas Ewald 5 ,
Birgit Klein 6 , Michael Pütz 7 , Simone Thiemt 8 ,
Volker Auwärter 1
1Institute of Forensic Medicine, Forensic Toxicology, Albertstr.
9, 79104 Freiburg
2State Office of Criminal Investigation of Schleswig-Holstein,
Mühlenweg 166, 24116 Kiel
3Otto-Diels-Institute of Organic Chemistry, University of Kiel,
Olshausenstr. 40, 24118 Kiel
4Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Albert-Ludwigs-
University Freiburg, Albertstr. 25, 79104 Freiburg
5Institute of Legal Medicine of the University of Saarland,
Building 42, 66421 Homburg
6State Office of Criminal Investigation of Hesse, Hölderlinstr.
1-5, 65187 Wiesbaden
7Federal Criminal Agency, Äppelallee 45, 65203 Wiesbaden
8State Office of Criminal Investigation of Bavaria,
Maillingerstr. 15, 80636 München
Abstract
In Germany five new cannabimimetics have been seized
since the end of 2009 to November 2010. Particularly due
to the insufficient mass spectrometric data available in the
literature, these drugs have to be structurally characterized
by time-consuming and extensive procedures. In this article,
mass spectrometric and infrared spectroscopic data of
some relevant emerging cannabimimetics are presented.
Keywords
Cannabimimetics, Aminoalkylindoles, JWH, GC-MS, IR-ATR
1. Introduction
The German drugs market is currently flooded by new
cannabimimetics. Development of such synthetic
cannabinoid receptor agonists started in the late 1970s,
when Pfizer was investigating new analgesics structurally
based on Δ 9 -THC. Their studies led to the compound CP-
47,497 [1], which in fact featured a simplified structure
compared to Δ 9 -THC, but exceeded its pharmacological
effects in various mouse models [2]. Nearly simultaneously,
Page 38
Sterling Winthrop searched for new compounds showing
less gastrointestinal side effects compared to non-steroidal
anti-inflammatory drugs. During their investigations,
Sterling Winthrop developed Pravadoline (WIN-48,098),
whose analogs with aminoalkylindole structure revealed
high binding affinity to the cannabinoid receptors [3].
Finally, intensive studies on structure-activity relationships
performed by Sterling Winthrop and John W. Huffman,
led to the synthesis of hundreds of aminoalkylindoles with
markedly high affinity to the cannabinoid receptors (e.g.
JWH-018 or JWH-073) [4].
The C8 homolog of CP-47,497 and JWH-018 were the first
cannabimimetics identified in several herbal mixtures
in December 2008 [5]. Since then, numerous analogs
especially of the aminoalkylindole type were seen on the
market [7-9], most of them being detected in blood samples
by a method published in the Journal of Mass Spectrometry
recently [6]. Specifically in 2010, five new cannabimimetics
with aminoalkylindole structure were found, demonstrating
the increasing dynamics in the cannabinoid drugs market
as a reaction to legal control measures. Synthesis strategies
and pharmacological characterization of cannabimimetic
compounds are published extensively. However, the
published analytical data are in general not sufficient for
identification by means of GC-MS. As a consequence,
each new compound found in an herbal mixture has to
be isolated in a time-consuming process and structurally
elucidated using e. g. nuclear magnetic resonance
spectroscopy (NMR) in combination with high-resolution
mass spectrometry, techniques which are not available in
many forensic institutions.
This article provides mass spectra and (as far as available)
infrared spectra of those cannabimimetics, which were
seized and structurally elucidated between end of 2009
and November 2010.
In addition, we present analytical data of further
cannabimimetics, which can already be purchased over
the Internet as ‘research chemicals’. In terms of identification
of unknown compounds – particularly structural isomers –
infrared spectroscopy becomes more and more important,
because in most cases GC-MS is not capable to distinguish
isomeric compounds from each other. This is essential in
cases where not all isomers are available for comparison or
the isomerism is located e. g. in the substitution pattern of
an aromatic ring.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Chemicals
1-Butyl-3-[1-(4-methylnaphthoyl)]indole (2), 1-Pentyl-3-[1-
(4-methoxynaphthoyl)]indole (3, JWH-081), 1-Pentyl-3-[1-
(4-methylnaphthoyl)]indole (4, JWH-122), 1-Pentyl-3-(4methoxybenzoyl)indole
(5, RCS-04) and 1-Pentyl-3-(1-[(4ethylnaphthoyl)]indole
(6, JWH-210) were extracted from
herbal mixtures seized by several State Offices of Criminal
Investigation (LKA), the Federal Criminal Police Office
(BKA) as well as the Forensic Toxicology Department of the
Institute of Forensic Medicine in Freiburg (University Medical
Center Freiburg, Germany).
1-(2-(Morpholino-4-yl)ethyl)-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (7, JWH-
200), 1-Butyl-3-(4-methoxy benzoyl)indole (8), WIN 55,212-
2 (9), CP 55,940 (10), 1-(5-Fluoropentyl)-3-(2-iodobenzoyl)
indole (11, AM-694), HU-308 (12), HU-331 (13), CB-25 (14),
CB-52 (15) and 1-Pentyl-3-(2-chlorophenylacetyl)indole (16,
JWH-203) were found as so-called ‘research chemicals’
offered by several providers on the Internet.

2.2. Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-
MS)
Sample workup: Samples of seized herbal mixtures were
extracted with ethanol [8]. Samples of pure substances
were dissolved in methanol or ethanol to reach a final
concentration of at least 100 µg/mL. 1 µL of the extracts
were injected into the GC-MS system.
Instruments: Analyses were performed using a GC-MS
system consisting of a gas chromatograph (Trace GC Ultra)
from Thermo Electron with an CTC CombiPAL autosampler
(CTC Analytics, Switzerland), coupled to a TSQ7000 triple
quadrupole mass spectrometer from Thermo-Finnigan.
GC conditions: Samples were injected splitless. The injector
temperature was set to 220 °C and the carrier gas was
helium (1 mL/min, constant flow). For separation of analytes
a fused silica DB-1 column from J&W with a length of 30 m,
an inner diameter of 0.32 mm and a film thickness of 0.25 µm
was used. The temperature program was as follows: initially
80 °C for 1 min, ramped to the final temperature of 280 °C
at 15 °C/min, which was hold for 20 min. The temperature
of the transfer line heater was 280 °C.
MS conditions: A mass range of m/z = 29 – 600 with one scan
per second was performed. The ion source temperature
was 175 °C. For the acquisition of electron impact (EI) mass
spectra an ionization energy of 70 eV and an emission
current of 400 µA was used.
Retention indices (RI) were determined as Kovats retention
indices after measurement of an n-alkane mixture using the
temperature program given above.
2.3. 1 H- and 13 C-NMR analyses
The purchased pure compounds 5 – 8 and 16 were
structurally elucidated using GC-MS and NMR. Identification
of compounds, which were found in herbal mixtures,
was performed after preparative chromatographic
enrichment, either by using GC-MS combined with NMR
or by comparison of the IR spectra obtained from those
compounds purchased previously. The NMR spectroscopic
data are not presented in this article.
O
N
JWH-073
CH 3
O
N
TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
3. Results and Discussion (Mass spectra and IR
spectra)
3.1. Seized cannabimimetics since the end of 2009
until 2010
Structure elucidation and analytical data of 1-Pentyl-3-(2methoxyphenyl
ace tyl)indole (1, JWH-250) was reported
previously [7,8]. In 2009, the JWH-073 homolog 1-Butyl-3-[1-
(4-methylnaphthoyl)]indole (2) was also found in an herbal
mixture next to JWH-073 [10].
Herbal mixtures containing the ingredients 1-Pentyl-3-[1-
(4-methoxy naph tho yl)]indole (3, JWH-081), 1-Pentyl-3-
[1-(4-methylnaphthoyl)]indole (4, JWH-122), 1-Pentyl-3-
(4-methoxybenzoyl)indole (5, RCS-04), 1-Pentyl-3-[1-(4ethylnaphthoyl)]indole
(6, JWH-210) and 1-Hexyl-3-(1naphthoyl)indole
(JWH-019, [11]) were seized in 2010.
3.2. Other cannabimimetics available for purchase
1-(2-(Morpholino-4-yl)ethyl)-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (7,
JWH-200), 1-Butyl-3-(4-methoxy benzo yl)indole (8, present
as contamination in 5), WIN 55,212-2 (9), CP 55,940 (10),
1-(5-Fluoropentyl)-3-(2-iodobenzoyl)indole (11, AM-694),
HU-308 (12), HU-331 (13), CB-25 (14), CB-52 (15) and
1-Pentyl-(2-chlorophenylacetyl)indole (16, JWH-203)
were found as ‘research chemicals’, which were already
purchasable. These compounds have not been identified
in herbal mixtures yet, but their appearance just seems to
be a question of time.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the EU-Commission
(JUST/2009/DPIP/AG/0948), the German Ministry of Health
and the City of Frankfurt/Main for funding the project ‘Spice
and synthetic cannabinoids’.
H 3 C
O
CH 3
1
(JWH-250)
O
N
CH 3
CH 3
2
1-Butyl-3-[1-(4-methylnaphthoyl)]indol
Page 39

TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
100
50
100
50
100
50
Page 40
1-Butyl-3-[1-(4-methylnaphthoyl)]indol
Cannabimimetic
O
2
N CH 3
115
127
144
CH 3
169
41 89
29 57
102
226
308
77 191
N-Pentyl-3-[1-(4-methoxynaphthoyl)]indol
JWH-081
Cannabimimetic
O
N
O
181
144 214
CH
3
185
43
32
114
157
241
285
270
340
89 102
55 66 77
171
CH 3
1-Pentyl-3-[1-(4-methylnaphtoyl)]indol
4-Methylnaphthalen-1-yl-(1-pentylindol-3-yl)methanon
JWH-122
Cannabimimetic
3
200
144 214
181
115 169
43
127
254 270
29 55 67 77
89 102
202
226 322
O
N
4
254
CH 3
270
300
CH 3
284
284
314
298
298
354
324
338
371
341
355
MW:341.45276
MM:341.17796
C24H23NO RI: 3178 (SE-30)
GC/MS
EI 70 eV
TSQ 7000
QI:987
m/z
MW:371.47904
MM:371.18853
C25H25NO2 RI: 3405 (SE-30)
GC/MS
EI 70 eV
TSQ 7000
m/z
MW:355.47964
MM:355.19361
C25H25NO RI: 3263 (SE-30)
GC/MS
EI 70 eV
TSQ 7000
QI:995
m/z

100
50
Transmission[%]
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
3300
1-Pentyl-3-[1-(4-methylnaphthoyl)]indol
4-Methylnaphtalen-1-yl-(1-pentylindol-3-yl)methanon
JWH-122
Nicolet ATR-IR
3051.0
3035.6
2956.5
2929.5
2854.3
2657.6
O
N
4
Wavenumber (cm -1 )
TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
CH3
1621.9
1610.3
1517.8
1513.9
1463.8
867.85
850.50
825.42
3000 2500 2000
1500
1000 700
1-Pentyl-3-(3-methoxybenzoyl)indol
4-Methoxyphenyl-(1-pentyl-1H-indol-3-yl)methanon
RCS-04
Cannabimimetic
Transmission[%]
135
144
186
214
CH 3
264
1369.3
1222.7
1182.2
119
29
43
55 64
77
92
107
152
165 179 207 233 250
290
306
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
3300
1-Pentyl-3-(4-methoxybenzoyl)indol
RCS-04
Nicolet ATR-IR
2987.3
2950.7
2929.5
2867.8
2823.4
O
N
O
N
5
5
Wavenumber (cm -1 )
CH 3
O
1614.2
1600.7
1519.7
1463.8
CH 3
1066.5
321
742.50
665.35
MW:321.41916
MM:321.17288
C21H23NO2 RI: 2981 (SE-30)
GC/MS
EI 70 eV
TSQ 7000
QI:997
3000 2500 2000
1500
1000 700
CH 3
O
CH 3
m/z
1378.9
1247.8
1230.4
1170.6
1153.3
1020.2
937.28
877.50
750.21
740.57
705.85
Page 41

TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
100
50
100
50
Page 42
1-Pentyl-3-[1-(4-ethylnaphthoyl)]indol
4-Ethylnaphthalen-1-yl-(1-pentylindol-3-yl)methanon
JWH-210
Cannabimimetic
Transmission[%]
43
O CH 3
N
6
116
CH 3
144
195
214
183
153 254 270 298
29 77 89 102
167
226
55 66
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
3300
3056.8
2966.1
2956.5
2933.3
2856.2
2825.3
241
1-Pentyl-3-[1-(4-ethylnaphthoyl)]indol
4-Ethylnaphthalen-1-yl(1-pentylindol-3-yl)methanon
JW H-210
Nicolet ATR-IR
100
O CH 3
N
6
CH 3
Wavenumber (cm -1 )
1618.1
1606.5
312
322
340
352
369
MW:369.50652
MM:369.20926
C26H27NO CAS:824960-64-7
RI: 3323 (SE-30)
GC/MS
EI 70 eV
TSQ 7000
QI:995
3000 2500 2000
1500
1000 700
1-(2-(Morpholin-4-yl)ethyl)-3-(1-naphthoyl)indol
(1-(2-(Morpholin-4-yl)ethyl)indol-3-yl)-naphthalen-1-ylmethanon
JWH-200
Cannabimimetic
O
1515.8
1392.4
1377.0
1336.5
56 127 384
70 155 O
29 42 89 115 139 170 189 207 226 254 284 311 339 367
N
7
N
1180.3
1128.2
1099.3
1064.6
m/z
821.57
746.35
734.78
665.35
MW:384.47784
MM:384.18378
C25H24N2O2 CAS:103610-04-4
RI: 3581 (SE-30)
GC/MS
EI 70 eV
TSQ 7000
QI:999
m/z

100
50
100
50
100
50
1-Butyl-3-(4-methoxybenzoyl)indol
4-Methoxyphenyl-(1-butyl-1H-indol-3-yl)methanon
O
N
8
CH 3
135
O
144
CH 3
77 116
172
29 41
55 64
92
152
165 192
222
233 250
276
290
(R)-(+)-[2,3-Dihydro-5-methyl-3-(4-morpholinylmethyl)pyrrolo[(1,2,3.de)-1,4-benzoxazin-
6-yl]-1-naphthalenylmethanon
WIN 55,212-2
CB1 Cannabinoid receptor agonist, cannabimimetic
100
200
TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
56
127
426
42
70
155
29 89 113 173 207 226 255 281 299 326 355 411
43
121
147
O
O
N
273
CH 3
9
264
N O
2-[(1R,2R,5R)-5-Hydroxy-2-(3-hydroxypropyl)cyclohexyl]-5-(2-methyloctan-2yl)phenol
CP 55,940
OH
Cannabimimetic
H C
3
CH
3
135
161
187
OH
213
231
376
57
71
93
107
173
255
304
358
199
29 246 316
OH
10
CH 3
343
307
MW:307.39228
MM:307.15723
C20H21NO2 RI: 2871 (SE-30)
GC/MS
EI 70 eV
TSQ 7000
QI:997
m/z
MW:426.51512
MM:426.19434
C27H26N2O3 CAS:131543-23-3
RI: 3853 (SE-30)
GC/MS
EI 70 eV
TSQ 7000
QI:982
m/z
MW:376.57980
MM: 376.297745
C24H40O3 CAS:83002-04-4
RI: 2966 (SE-30)
GC/MS
EI 70 eV
TSQ 7000
QI:995
m/z
Page 43

TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
100
50
Transmission[%]
Page 44
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
CP 55,940
Nicolet ATR-IR
3800
3282.4
3211.1
3203.3
3197.6
3166.7
2956.5
2925.6
2858.1
OH
OH
OH
H 3 C CH 3 10
3500 3000 2500
2000
1500
1000 700
1-(5-Fluorpentyl)-3-(2-iodbenzoyl)indol
1-[(5-Fluorpentyl)-1H-indol-3-yl]-(2-iodphenyl)methanon
AM-694
Cannabimimetic
Transmission[%]
144
204
232
220
Wavenumber (cm -1 )
1618.1
1519.7
1459.9
1448.4
1417.5
1357.7
1247.8
1207.3
41 76
89
116 165
176
308
360
F
32 256 288 331 348 388 418
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
3300
1-(5-Fluorpentyl)-3-(2-iodbenzoyl)indol
1-[(5-Fluorpentyl)-1H-indol-3-yl]-(2-iodphenyl)methanon
AM-694
Nicolet ATR-IR
3056.8
2966.1
2937.2
2902.5
2858.1
O
N
I
11
O
N
W avenumber (cm -1 )
1677.8
1614.2
1608.4
I
11
CH 3
1517.8
1463.8
1382.8
1351.9
1228.5
1166.8
435
1051.1
989.35
1053.0
1022.1
813.85
661.50
MW:435.27987
MM:435.04954
C20H19FINO RI: 3042 (SE-30)
GC/MS
EI 70 eV
TSQ 7000
QI:999
3000 2500 2000
1500
1000 700
F
m/z
869.78
748.28
740.57
721.28

100
50
100
50
HU-308
[(1R,2R,5R)-2-[2,6-dimethoxy-4-(2-methyloctan-2-yl)phenyl]-7,7-dimethyl-4-bicyclo
[3.1.1]hept-3-enyl] methanol
Cannabimimetic
Transmission[%]
29
43
H 3C
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
H 3 C
HO
71
57 91
O
CH 3
O
CH 3
12
H 3C CH 3
119 180 234
293
215
151
383
191 341
265 396
365
HU-308
[(1R,2R,5R)-2-[2,6-dimethoxy-4-(2-methyloctan-2-yl)phenyl]-7,7-dimethyl-
4-bicyclo[3.1.1]hept-3-enyl] methanol
Nicolet ATR-IR
3373.1
3311.3
3305.6
3297.8
2952.6
2927.6
2860.1
2835.0
H 3 C
H 3 C
HO
O
277
CH 3
O
CH 3
TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
318
Wavenumber (cm -1 )
353
1452.2
1409.8
1363.5
CH 3
414
MW:414.62868
MM:414.31340
C27H42O3 CAS:256934-39-1
RI: 2741 (SE30)
GC/MS
EI 70 eV
TSQ 7000
10.0
0.0
CH3 H 3C CH3 3500 3000 2500
2000
1500
1000 700
HO CH 204
3
12
237
1606.5
1571.8
HU-331
3-Hydroxy-2-[(1R,6R)-3-methyl-6-(1-methylethenyl)-2-cyclohexen-1-yl]-5-pentyl-
2,5-cyclohexadien-1,4-dion
Cannabinoid based antineoplastic
H 3 C
CH 3
O
13
41 91 O
328
79
220
67 109
175 247
293
55
161
128 147
189 260
29
285
1238.1
313
1122.4
m/z
987.42
927.64
831.21
725.14
669.21
MW:328.45152
MM:328.20384
C21H28O3 RI: 2298 (SE30)
GC/MS
EI 70 eV
TSQ 7000
m/z
Page 45

TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
100
50
Page 46
Transmission[%]
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
3800
HU-331
3-Hydroxy-2-[(1R,6R)-3-methyl-6-(1-methylethenyl)-2-cyclohexen-1-yl]-5-pentyl-
2,5-cyclohexadien-1,4-dion
Nicolet ATR-IR
3394.3
3382.7
3367.3
3321.0
H 3 C
CH 3
2958.4
2925.6
2858.1
2833.1
3500 3000 2500
2000
1500
1000 700
Wavenumber (cm -1 )
CB-25
N-Cyclopropyl-11-(3-hydroxy-5-pentylphenoxy)undecanamid
Anandamide analog cannabimimetic (CB1+CB2)
Transmission[%]
29
41
100.0
50.0
57
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
124
O
HO CH 3
O
13
1654.7
1637.3
1612.3
1375.1
1355.8
1311.4
O N
14
69
HO
138
181
CH3 83
95
111
164 202
224
237
262 290
318
347
374
CB-25
N-Cyclopropyl-11-(3-hydroxy-5-pentylphenoxy)undecanamid
Nicolet ATR-IR
3321.0
3074.1
3068.3
3060.6
2948.8
2919.8
2850.4
O N
14
Wavenumber (cm -1 )
O
1639.3
1587.2
1537.1
1465.7
H
1201.5
403
1045.3
1031.8
891.00
721.28
686.57
MW:403,60548
MM:403,30864
C25H41NO3 CAS:869376-63-6
RI: 3383 (SE30)
GC/MS
EI 70 eV
TSQ 7000
10.0
0.0
HO
CH3
3500 3000 2500
2000
1500
1000 700
O
H
1342.3
1315.3
1166.8
m/z
1051.1
1000.9
852.42
833.14
721.28
690.43

100
50
100
50
CB-52
N-Cyclopropyl-11-(2-hexyl-5-hydroxyphenoxy)undecanamid
Cannabimimetic (CB1+CB2)
Transmission[%]
57
123
HO
O N
41
29
69
83 95 112
149
194
177 208
261
234
251 275 301 329
360
388
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
3249.6
3201.4
3189.8
3174.4
2921.8
2852.3
15
TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
CH 3
CB-52
N-Cyclopropyl-11-(2-hexyl-5-hydroxyphenoxy)undecanamid
Nicolet ATR-IR
HO
O N
15
CH 3
Wavenumber (cm -1 )
346
1733.8
1656.6
1633.5
1552.5
O
H
1170.6
1130.1
417
MW:417.63236
MM:417.32429
C26H43NO3 RI: 3409 (SE30)
GC/MS
EI 70 eV
TSQ 7000
3500 3000 2500
2000
1500
1000 700
1-Pentyl-(2-chlorphenacetyl)indol
JWH-203
Cannabimimetic
144
29
43
51 63 77
89
116
102 129
158 176 190 204 232 246 267 282 304
CH3 339
325
214
O
H
O
N
1463.8
1369.3
16
1270.9
Cl
m/z
991.28
964.28
829.28
723.21
688.50
MW:339.86452
MM:339.13899
C21H22ClNO RI: 2913 (SE-30)
GC/MS
EI 70 eV
TSQ 700
QI:999
m/z
Page 47

TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
Transmission[%]
Page 48
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
4. References
1-Pentyl-(2-chlorphenacetyl)indol
JW H-203
Nicolet ATR-IR
3108.8
2968.1
2946.8
2933.3
2914.1
2854.3
0.0
3500 3000 2500
2000
1500
1000 700
[1] L.S. Melvin, M.R. Johnson, C.A. Harbert, G.M. Milne, A.
Weissman, A cannabinoid derived prototypical analgesic,
J. Med. Chem. 27 (1984) 67-71.
[2] D.R. Compton, M.R. Johnson, L.S. Melvin, B.R. Martin,
Pharmacological profile of a series of bicyclic cannabinoid
analogs: classification as cannabimimetic agents, J.
Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 260 (1992) 201-209.
[3] T.E. D’Ambra, K.G. Estep, et al., Conformationally
restrained analogues of pravadoline: nanomolar potent,
enantioselective, (aminoalkyl)indole agonists of the
cannabinoid receptor, J. Med. Chem. 35 (1992) 124-135.
[4] J.W. Huffmanan, L.W. Padgett, Recent developments in the
medicinal chemistry of cannabimimetic indoles, pyrroles
and indenes, Curr. Med. Chem. 12 (2005) 1395-1411.
[5] V. Auwärter, S. Dresen, W. Weinmann, M. Müller, M. Pütz, N.
Ferreirós, ‘Spice’ and other herbal blends: harmless incense
or cannabinoid designer drugs?, J. Mass Spectrom. 44
(2009) 832-837.
[6] S. Dresen, S. Kneisel, W. Weinmann, R. Zimmermann,
V. Auwärter, Development and validation of a liquid
chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method
for the quantitation of synthetic cannabinoids of the
aminoalkyl indole type and methanandamide in serum
and its application to forensic samples, J. Mass Spectrom.
2011 Jan 24 [Epub ahead of print], doi: 10.1002/jms.1877,
163-171.
[7] European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction
(EMCDDA), Thematic Paper, Understanding the ‘Spice’
phenomenon, 2009.
[8] F. Westphal, Th. Junge, F. Sönnichsen, P. Rösner, J. Schäper,
Ein neuer Wirkstoff in SPICE-artigen Kräutermischungen:
Charakterisierung von JWH-250, seinen Methyl- und
Trimethylsilylderivaten, Toxichem. Krimtech. 77 (2010) 46-58.
[9] S. Dresen, N. Ferreirós, M. Pütz, F. Westphal, Z. Zimmermann,
V. Auwärter, Monitoring of herbal mixtures potentially
containing synthetic cannabinoids as psychoactive
compounds, J. Mass Spectrom. 45 (2010) 1186-1194.
[10] F. Westphal, F.D. Sönnichsen, S. Thiemt, Identification
2646.0
O
N
2323.9
16
Cl
CH 3
W avenumber (cm -1 )
1679.8
1650.8
1527.4
1378.9
1191.9
1134.0
923.78
919.92
767.57
746.35
729.00
692.35
of 1-butyl-3-(1-(4-methyl)naphthoyl) indole in an herbal
mixture, Forensic Sci. Int. 2010; submitted for publication.
[11] F. Westphal, P. Rösner, Th. Junge, Mass spectra of
N-alkylated 3-naphthoylindoles, drug variants possibly
emerging as new designer drugs in SPICE-products, in: F.
Pragst, T. Arndt (Eds.), XVI. GTFCh-Symposium. Toxikologie
psychisch aktiver Substanzen. Psychopharmaka – Neue
Drogen – Suchanalyse – Kasuistiken, Verlag Gesellschaft für
Toxikologische und Forensische Chemie, 2009, pp.123-135.
Stefan Kneisel (born 1984); From 2004 until
2008 studies in Pharmacy at the Martin-Luther
University Halle-Wittenberg, Germany.
Approbation as pharmacist and defence of
diploma thesis in 2009.
Since 2010 PhD Student in the field of “Analysis
of synthetic cannabinoids” in the Department of
Forensic Toxicology, Institute of Legal Medicine,
Freiburg, Germany

Sponsorship opportunities for the TIAFT Bulletin
For companies interested in securing ongoing sponsorship we would like to remind you as to the benefits of
advertising in the new look TIAFT Bulletin. TIAFT is a 48 year old association with over 1500 members from all
regions of the world. The aims of this association are to promote cooperation and coordination of efforts
among members and to encourage research in forensic toxicology. The members come from police forces,
medical examiners and coroners’ laboratories, horse racing and sports doping laboratories, hospitals,
departments of legal medicine, pharmacology, pharmacy and toxicology.
TIAFT has had a member’s bulletin for over 20 years now, informing toxicologists of new drugs developments
in analytical methodology, technological advances including new instruments and applications and also
identifying and providing uniformity in analytical standards. The bulletin has undergone significant revision
with new editorship, new features and increased scientific content. As newly appointed Editors of the TIAFT
Bulletin we are asking sponsors to consider the possibility of advertising in the TIAFT main communiqué. The
TIAFT Bulletin appears four times a year and contains reports from the officers and committees of TIAFT,
abstracts, articles on new technology, guidelines of laboratory practice and ethics, opinions from TIAFT
members, case notes and news of members.
There are a number of exciting new sections planned for the Bulletin including:
• New products section - this will give companies the ability to provide information to TIAFT members on
new and innovative product developments, news space will be provided to companies who take out a
full page advertisement in the bulletin. The content can be written by the responsible company with no
input or restriction from the editors.
• We aim to have a new drugs section including detailed developments in drug detection and
methodology.
• We will also include a section on other significant developments and meeting highlights from other
toxicological societies such as SOFT, IATDMCT, SFTA, GTFCH, and SOHT etc.
As of 2011 the rates of sponsorship are $3000USD per full A4 page (4 editions) and $1500USD for half A4 page
(4 editions). There will be 4 issues of the bulletin to be published each year reaching an audience in excess
of 1500 members from all the key forensic and analytical laboratories worldwide. This bulletin is also a key
document which connects many of the developing countries around the world who are keen to develop
their own analytical capacity with needs for new technologies and consumables.
Most companies/sponsors have had a long and proud association with TIAFT through its annual conferences
and involvement in forensic and clinical laboratories and we would welcome your contribution to our
TIAFT bulletin. All enquiries and expressions of interest should be emailed to tiaftbulletin@gmail.com with
the subject heading ‘sponsorship’. Don’t miss an exciting opportunity to be involved in the world’s most
foremost forensic toxicology organisation.
Dimitri Gerostamoulos & Jochen Beyer, TIAFT Bulletin Editors.
www.tiaft.org
tiaftbulletin@gmail.com

Immunoassay Screening
Urine
Oral Fluid
Hair
Blood
Meconium
Tissue Extract
Vitreous Humor
© Immunalysis Corporation
For forensic use only
UK and Ireland-
AgriYork 400 Limited
www.agriyork.co.uk
Robust line of ELISA and Homogeneous Enzyme
Immunoassays for drugs of abuse and prescription
medications
Alcohol Enzyme Assay for Saliva, Blood, and Urine
Hair Simple, rapid extraction procedures
Meets SOHT recommended cutoffs
Oral Fluid collection device
Volume Adequacy indicator
High extraction efficiencies
No artificial stimulants
Manual, semi-automated, and automated microplate
screening equipment.
International Distributors
In Germany, Switzerland,
Austria, France, Italy, Spain,
Greece, Turkey, and Belgium-
Nal von Minden GmbH
www.nal-vonminden.de
Convenience • Accuracy • Reliability • Confidence
ISO 9001:2008
13485:2003
CERTIFIED
In New Zealand-
Diagnostic Bioserve Ltd
www.diagnostic@xtra.co.nz
Tel: 1-909-482-0840
Toll Free 1-888-664-8378
Fax: 1-909-482-0850
www.immunalysis.com
U.S.A.

TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
2011 SOFT-TIAFT UPDATE
Nikolas P. Lemos, PhD & Ann
Marie Gordon, MS
ABSTrACT DEADLINE: APrIL 15, 2011
hOTEL rATE CUTOFF DATE: AUGUST 1, 2011
San Francisco, the unique metropolis by the bay,
is getting ready to host the 41st Annual Meeting
of the Society of Forensic Toxicologists, which will
be a jointly offered with the 49th Annual Meeting
of The International Association of Forensic
Toxicologists. The conference dates are Sunday,
September 25 to Friday, September 30, 2011.
You should expect to have an didactic and
rewarding scientific program that will educate
and inspire as well as a rejuvenating social
calendar to entertain all. The average daytime
temperature this time of the year is 72°F (22°C)
but it can drop to a rather low 56°F (13°C) at
night. You should expect clear days and little fog
as this is one of the best times of year to visit San
Francisco! Please read on for useful information
regarding this event.
Page 51

TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE SCHEDULE
This is tentative and may change – please visit
www.toxicology2011.org for the most up-todate
scheduling information.
Saturday, 24 September 2011
1400-1800 Registration Desk
Sunday, 25 September 2011
0700-1800 Registration Desk
0900-1130 TIAFT Board Meeting
0900-1300 NSC-COAD Executive Board
1000-1200 Forensic Toxicology
Council Meeting
1130-1230 TIAFT Regional
Representatives Meeting
1230-1400 Young SOFT-TIAFT Lunch
1400-1830 Young SOFT-TIAFT Symposium
1400-1800 NLCP Inspector/Director Training
1900 - Young SOFT-TIAFT Happy Hour
Monday, 26 September 2011
0700-1800 Registration Desk
0700-0800 Continental Breakfast
0800-1730 Workshops (0800-1200 &
1330-1730)
0900-1200 FTCB Examinations
0800-1700 Student Enrichment Program
by SOFT-YFTC
0900-1700 Exhibit Hall Staging
1200-1330 Lunch for Workshop Attendees
1330-1630 FTCB Board Meeting
1730-1830 SOFT/AAFS Drugs & Driving
Committee Meeting
1900-2200 Tier I Sponsors’ Receptions
Tuesday, 27 September 2011
0700-1800 Registration Desk
0700-0800 Continental Breakfast
0700-1200 SOFT Board Meeting
0800-1730 Workshops (0800-1200 &
1330-1730)
0800-1200 ABFT Examinations
0900-12 00 ABFT Accreditation
Committee Meeting
0900-1700 Exhibit Hall Staging
1200-1330 Lunch for Workshop Attendees
1200-1800 ABFT Board Meeting
1730-1830 DFSA Committee Meeting
1800 Sunshine/Rieders Silent Auction
Opens
1800-1900 Happy Hour in Exhibit Hall
1800-1900 ABFT Certificate Reception
1900-2100 Welcoming Reception in
Exhibit Hall
2100-2230 Historical Lecture &
Elmer Gordon Forum
2230-0030 Night Owl
Page 52
Wednesday, 28 September 2011
0730-1530 Registration Desk
0730-0830 Continental Breakfast
0830-1530 Exhibit Hall Open
0830-0950 Opening Ceremony &
Plenary Sessions
1010-1210 Parallel Scientific Sessions
1210-1340 Lunch & Poster Session 1 in
Exhibit Hall
1340-1440 Parallel Scientific Sessions
1440-1630 SOFT Business Meeting
1730-2300 Escape TO Alcatraz & San
Francisco Bay Cruise
Thursday, 29 September 2011
060 0-0730 SOFT “Karla Moore” Fun
Run/Walk
0730-1600 Registration Desk
0730-0830 Continental Breakfast
0730-0900 AAFS Steering Committee
Meeting
0830-1500 Exhibit Hall Open
1330 Sunshine/Rieders Silent Auction
Ends
0830-1235 Parallel Scientific Sessions
1100-1200 Exhibitors’ Feedback Session
1235-1400 Lunch & Poster Session 2 in
Exhibit Hall
1400-1530 Parallel Scientific Sessions
1530-1730 TIAFT Business Meeting
1830-2400 Uniting Nations Presidential Gala
Dinner
Friday, 30 September 2011
0730-0830 Continental Breakfast
0830-1235 Parallel Scientific Sessions
1235-1400 Lunch & Poster Session 3
1400-1600 Parallel Scientific Sessions
1630-1800 Award Presentations & Closing
Ceremony

WORKSHOP PROGRAM
Our workshop program co-chairs, Laureen
Marinetti, PhD, and Dimitri Gerostamoulos, PhD,
have organized two days of workshops that
cover beginner, intermediate and advanced
topics in forensic and analytical toxicology.
There were many exceptional submissions
which were peer-reviewed by our distinguished
International Advisory Board for inclusion in the
meeting’s workshop program. The following
workshops will be offered at the 2011 SOFT-
TIAFT meeting:
Monday, September 26, 2011
Morning
WM1 Analytical Advances in Oral Fluid Drug
Testing
Chairs: E Cone and A Verstraete
WM2 Scientific Writing for Dummies and
Smarties Too!
Chairs: M Lebeau and J Ropero-Miller
WM3 ICP-MS for Metals and Elements Testing
in Toxicology
Chairs: P Kintz and JP Goulle
Afternoon
WM4 Applications of Oral Fluid Drug Testing
Chairs: E Cone and A Verstraete
WM5 New Developments in the Application
of Capillary Electrophoresis in Forensic
Toxicology
Chairs: F Tagliaro and JC Hudson
WM6 Publishing in Journals for Forensic
Toxicologists
Chairs: MP Juhascik and M Merves
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Morning
WT7 High Resolution Accurate Mass Spec
(HRAM) in Forensic and Clinical
Toxicology
Chairs: B Clarke and K Johnson
WT8 Solid Phase Extraction Practices and
Principles in Forensic Toxicology
Chairs: J Hackett and A Elian
WT9 Pairing Clinical and Postmortem
Toxicology Findings for Interpretative
Purposes
Chairs: NP Lemos and T Kearney
TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
Afternoon
WT10 LC-MS: Tips, Troubleshooting and
Techniques
Chairs: J Brower and R Van Orden
WT11 Forensic Toxicologist Expert Witness
Testimony: What to Expect and How to
Prepare
Chairs: J Thatcher and M Merves
WT12 Spice: Detection in Various Biological
Matrices
Chairs: C Moore and S Rana
Please note that delegates will be able to
either register for individual workshops (a la
carte) or register for up to four workshops of
their choice if they use the COMBINED Full
Meeting AND Workshop Registration.
COMBINED Full Meeting AND Workshop
Registrants get priority choice of Workshops on
Monday and Tuesday but Workshops are
subject to capacity limitations.
Page 53

TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
SCIENTIFIC PROGRAM
An exciting, educational and diverse scientific
program is being planned by our scientific
program chair, Marilyn Huestis, PhD. Topics are
expected to cover many areas of toxicology
including postmortem toxicology, human
performance toxicology, analytical techniques
& methods, interpretative challenges, case
reports, Driving under the influence of alcohol
and/or drugs, clinical toxicology, drug
facilitated crimes, and alternative biological
specimens.
The Abstract Submission deadline is April 15,
2011.
You can find out how to submit an abstract by
reading the 2011 SOFT-TIAFT Call for Papers
which can be found online at
www.toxicology2011.org under “Scientific
Program.”
Abstracts will be accepted only in electronic
format. Submissions will be peer-reviewed and
considered for platform or poster presentations
during the meeting’s scientific program
sessions. You will be notified of receipt of your
abstract within two weeks of submission. If you
do not receive notification in this time frame,
please contact Nikolas P. Lemos by email
(nikolas@toxicology2011.org) to ensure your
abstract was received.
Correspondence will normally be with the
presenting author only. Notification of
acceptance will be made in writing by July 1,
2011.
REGISTRATION INFORMATION
Registration for the 2011 Joint SOFT-TIAFT
International Conference and Expo on Forensic
& Analytical Toxicology will become available
in late March 2011 and will only be
accomplished on-line, by visiting
www.toxicology2011.org and clicking on
“Registration.”
Many types of registrations will be offered to all
delegates. The traditional SOFT types of
registration will be offered (i.e., meeting only,
workshops only, etc.) but this year and at par
with typical all-inclusive TIAFT meeting
registration style, there will also be a COMBINED
Full Meeting AND Workshop Registration
available to all delegates. More details about
each of our registration types can be found
online at www.toxicology2011.org under the
tab “Registration.”
Page 54
AWARDS AND TRAVEL GRANTS
Each year the two organizations recognize
various levels of achievement in the field of
forensic toxicology by means of awards and
grants. If you wish to be considered for any of
these awards, you must follow each
organization’s instructions, use the appropriate
application forms and meet their requirements
and deadlines. Information is available on
www.toxicology2011.org
LETTERS OF INVITATION
Upon request, Vina R. Spiehler, PhD, will be
pleased to provide you with an official Letter of
Invitation if required by your organization,
university, institute or immigration authorities.
Please contact her directly via email at
vina@toxicology2011.org
It is understood that such letter does not
constitute a commitment on the part of the
Organizing Committee to provide any further
support to the delegate requesting this letter.
HOST INSTITUTES/LABORATORIES
Ashraf Mozayani, PhD, will be pleased to assist
you in identifying a host institute or laboratory
in the USA if you so require. Please inquire
directly with her (ashraf@toxicology2011.org)
about the possibility of arranging such a short
educational visit before or after the 2011 Joint
SOFT-TIAFT Meeting.
It is understood that such assistance is intended
to help delegates make the most of their trip to
the USA, however, this is not a commitment on
the part of the Organizing Committee to
provide any further financial or immigration
support to the delegate.
VOLUNTEERS NEEDED
A meeting as significant and as large at the
2011 Joint SOFT-TIAFT International Conference
and Expo requires dozens of volunteers who
are eager and energetic individuals and who
are willing to assist the meeting’s organizers
create and deliver the best possible
experience to over one thousand visiting
exhibitors and delegates from all over the
world.
There is a need for volunteers to assist with the
following functions:
• Assembly of workshop materials before
the conference
• Bringing workshop materials to the
assigned rooms
• Signing-in workshop attendees
• Helping individuals with their posters
• Assisting with the Silent Auction
• Assisting with the “Karla Moore” Fun Run
• Assisting with the Student Enrichment
Program

• Assisting with meeting social events
• Serving as back-ups for the registration
desk
• Assisting scientific session moderators
• Assisting the IT Coordinators
If you have the time, eagerness and energy to
shine in this behind-the-scenes role, and to
help us make this meeting the best experience
possible for everyone involved, please email
Ms. Debby Denson, our volunteer coordinator,
at volunteers@toxicology2011.org to sign up.
You will be glad you did and you will truly
make a difference.
ABOUT THE CONFERENCE HOTEL
The conference hotel is the San
Francisco Marriott Marquis, a downtown San
Francisco landmark hotel rising 39 floors high
into the city skyline. The famous ‘jukebox’ hotel
is now accepting reservations at the
discounted rate of $166/night (single or double
occupancy; plus taxes). Triple and quad
discounted rates are also available. The
discounted conference hotel rate also
includes free complimentary in-room internet
access for the entire duration of the
conference. The hotel offers many amenities
including an incredible spa, babysitting
services, car rental desk, and foreign
exchange. If you haven’t already reserved
your room, please do so quickly as
accommodation deals like this one will not last
forever! Just south of Market Street, the San
Francisco Marriott Marquis Hotel is situated
steps away from the city's top attractions,
including the historical Cable Cars, world class
shopping on Union Square and Westfield's San
Francisco Centre featuring Bloomingdale's.
Enjoy magnificent views of downtown San
Francisco from a number of the 1,499 luxurious
guest rooms, including 137 distinct suites. With
117,000 sq. ft. of flexible meeting and banquet
space, including 63 meeting rooms, the San
Francisco Marriott Marquis Hotel is the premiere
destination for both corporate and social
events.
The cut-off date for our group rate is August 1,
2011.
Visit www.toxicology2011.org and click on
‘Accommodations’ to make your reservation
at the discounted 2011 SOFT-TIAFT conference
rate.
If you are driving to the conference venue, you
may wish to consider the various parking
options at or near the hotel:
1. The hotel offers valet parking to all
registered guests and day visitors. The
TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
current daily rate is $ 55.86 and the
current hourly rate is $13.
2. Diagonally across from the hotel at the
corner of Fourth and Mission Streets, is
the Fifth & Mission Garage, the largest
parking garage in San Francisco and
the economical alternative to the hotel
valet parking service. The hourly and
daily rates at this Parking Garage are
$3.50 and $32, respectively.
Please note that these prices are only
accurate at the time of printing and may
change without notice.
If you are flying into the San Francisco Bay
Area, please note that the conference hotel
does not provide shuttle service to/from
airports. It is, however, easy to get to and from
the two main international airports serving the
San Francisco Bay Area:
1. San Francisco International Airport (SFO)
located 13 miles from the conference
hotel.
Rentals Cars, Airport Shuttles, Subway Service
(BART) or Taxis may be used to reach the
hotel from this airport. BART is the most
convenient and economical way to travel
between SFO and the conference hotel.
Single, One-Way Ticket from SFO to Powell
Street is $8.10. The hotel is only one block
from the nearest BART stop: Powell Street.
TAXIS are available to transport you from
SFO to the conference hotel. The average
cost for a single, one-way trip from SFO to
the hotel is $50 (excluding surcharges and
tip).
2. Oakland International Airport (OAK)
located 19 miles from the conference
hotel.
Rentals Cars, Airport Shuttles, Subway
Service (BART) or Taxis may be used to
reach the hotel from this airport. BART is the
most convenient and economical way to
travel between OAK and the conference
hotel. Single, One-Way Ticket from SFO to
Powell Street is $3.80. The hotel is only one
block from the nearest BART stop: Powell
Street.
TAXIS are available to transport you from
OAK to the conference hotel. The average
cost for a single, one-way trip from OAK to
the hotel is $60 (excluding surcharges and
tip).
Please note that these prices are only
accurate at the time of printing and may
change without notice.
ABOUT SAN FRANCISCO
San Francisco is often called “Everybody’s
Favorite City,” a title earned by its scenic
Page 55

TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
beauty, cultural attractions, diverse communities,
and world-class cuisine. Measuring only 49
square miles, this very pedestrian-friendly city
is dotted with landmarks like the Golden Gate
Bridge, cable cars, Alcatraz and the largest
Chinatown in the United States. A stroll of the
City’s streets can lead to Union Square, the
Italian-flavored North Beach, Fisherman’s Wharf,
the Castro, Japantown and the Mission District,
with intriguing neighborhoods to explore at
every turn.
Views of the Pacific Ocean and San
Francisco Bay are sometimes laced with fog,
creating a romantic mood in this most European
of American cities. The City has a colorful past,
growing from a small village to a major city
nearly overnight as a result of the 1849 Gold
Rush. The writers of the “beat” generation, the
hippies of the Summer of Love in the late 1960’s
and the large gay/lesbian population have
all contributed to making San Francisco the
fascinating place it is today.
The City is home to world-class theatre,
opera, symphony and ballet companies and
often boasts premieres of Broadway-bound
plays and culture-changing performing arts. San
Francisco is one of America’s greatest dining
cities. The diverse cultural influences, proximity
of the freshest ingredients and competitive
creativity of the chefs result in unforgettable
dining experiences throughout the City.
Here are the top 10 things not to miss in
San Francisco, according to the San Francisco
Travel Association:
1. Golden Gate Bridge, the most famous
bridge in the world, manages to impress
even the most experienced travelers with its
stunning 1.7-mile span. Approximately 120,000
automobiles drive across it every day. A
pedestrian walkway also allows the crossing on
foot, and bikes are allowed on the western side.
Golden Gate Bridge is said to be one of the most
photographed objects on Earth. Delegates will
have the opportunity to see Golden Gate Bridge
and sail under it during Wednesday’s Escape TO
Alcatraz and San Francisco Bay Cruise event.
2. Cable cars have been transporting
people around San Francisco since the late 19th
century. The cars run on tracks and are moved
by an underground cable on three routes. Their
familiar bells can be heard ringing from blocks
away. Tickets may be purchased at the cable
car turnarounds at the ends of each route. Each
one-way ride will provide spectacular views of
the city’s celebrated hills as well as exhilarating
Page 56
transportation.
3. Alcatraz, the notorious former prison,
is located on an island of the same name in
the middle of San Francisco Bay. Some of the
United States’ most notorious criminals were
incarcerated there. Though several tried, no
inmate ever made a successful escape from
“The Rock.” The prison was closed in the 1960’s
and stories about Alcatraz are legendary. A
visit to Alcatraz today is fascinating. Recorded
cell-house tours are available, allowing visitors
to learn about the prison as they explore the
buildings and grounds. We will have the pleasure
of visiting ‘The Rock” on Wednesday evening
during our Escape TO Alcatraz and San Francisco
Bay Cruise!
4. Fisherman’s Wharf is also home to Pier 39,
a festive waterfront marketplace that is one of
the city’s most popular attractions. A community
of California sea lions has taken up residence on
the floats to the west of the pier and visitors line
the nearby railing to watch their antics. From
there it’s a short walk to the Wax Museum, Ripley’s
Believe It or Not! and the famous crab vendors
selling walk-away crab and shrimp cocktails.
5. Union Square is the place for serious
shoppers. Major departments stores and the
most exclusive designer boutiques line streets like
Post, Sutter, Geary, Grant, Stockton and Powell.
The Westfield San Francisco Shopping Centre
houses the largest Bloomingdale’s outside of
New York and the second largest Nordstrom in
the U.S.
6. North Beach, the city’s Italian quarter, isn’t
a beach at all. It’s a neighborhood of romantic
European-style sidewalk cafes, restaurants and
shops centered near Washington Square along
Columbus and Grant avenues. The beautiful
Church of Saints Peter and Paul is a beloved
landmark. Coit Tower atop Telegraph Hill offers a
splendid vantage point for photos of the bridges
and the Bay. Inside the tower, floor-to-ceiling
murals painted in the 1930s depict scenes of
early San Francisco.
7. The entrance to Chinatown at Grant
Avenue and Bush Street is called the “Dragon’s
Gate.” Inside are 24 blocks of hustle and bustle,
most of it taking place along Grant Avenue, the
oldest street in San Francisco. This city within a city
is best explored on foot; exotic shops, renowned
restaurants, food markets, temples and small
museums comprise its boundaries. Visitors can
buy ancient potions from herb shops, relax and
enjoy a “dim sum” lunch or witness the making
of fortune cookies.
8. Dining in San Francisco is an attraction in
itself. Known as America’s best restaurant city,
San Francisco chefs excel at combining the

freshest local ingredients, authentic international
flavors and a touch of creative genius. Choose
your cuisine – Chinese, Japanese, French, Italian,
Spanish, Moroccan, Indian, Malaysian, Thai,
Mexican, Greek, Russian, German or “fusion,” a
combination of any or all of these influences.
9. Nightlife in San Francisco is a constantly
changing scene. The “hottest” clubs currently
are in the South of Market and Mission districts,
with live and recorded rock and Latin music.
Jazz, blues, swing and “oldies” music can be
found all over town and the famous
10. A visit to San Francisco would not be
complete without a cultural experience. The city
is home to internationally recognized symphony,
opera and ballet companies. Playwrights such
as Sam Shepherd and Tom Stoppard introduce
their works in San Francisco and avant-garde
theatre and dance companies dot the city. The
San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, the Asian
Art Museum, the de Young Museum, the Palace
of the Legion of Honor and other museums and
TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
galleries are devoted to the finest of classical
and contemporary arts.
For the most up-to-date information about the
2011 Joint SOFT-TIAFT Meeting, please visit the
conference website:
www.toxicology2011.org
Photo: Palace of Fone Arts -SF
Page 57

TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
Page 58
TIAFT developing Countries Fund (dCF) Contributors - thank you to these members
It is easy to contribute to the Developing Countries Fund (DCF). When you join or renew your TIAFT membership, please
consider a donation (be it large or small) to the DCF. These contributions are invaluable and assist members from developing
countries to attend annual TIAFT meetings.
Contributor Country
Dr.Frederic AKNOUCHE France
Dr.William J. ALLENDER Australia
Dr.Robert A. ANDERSON UK
Timothy A. APPEL USA
Dr.Volker AUWAERTER Germany
Dr.Michael R. BAYLOR USA
Dr.Federica BORTOLOTTI Italy
Dr.Thomas A. BRIELLMANN Switzerland
Edward J. CONE USA
Professor.Ronald C. DENNEY UK
Koen DESMET Belgium
Dr.Wayne C. DUER USA
Dr.Manfred ERKENS Germany
Laurel J. FARRELL USA
Dr.Josef FEHN Germany
Dr.Bryan S. FINKLE USA
Barry A.J. FISHER USA
Dr.Jan Piet FRANKE The Netherlands
Prof.Albert D. FRASER Canada
Prof.Rino FROLDI Italy
Dr.David J. GEORGE USA
Dr.Kunio GONMORI Japan
Ph Biol MSc.Thierry GOUGNARD Belgium
Prof.Jean Pierre GOULLE France
Dr.Donald B. HOFFMAN USA
Prof. Dr. Dr. (h.c.).Marilyn A. HUESTIS USA
Prof.Hans K.L. HUNDT South Africa
Dr.James W. JONES USA
Prof Dr.Thomas KRAEMER Switzerland
Jakob KRISTINSSON Iceland
Dr.Marc LEBEAU USA
Dr.Barry LEVINE USA
Carol Anne LEWIS USA
Mr.Mark B. LEWIS USA
Dr.Dong-Liang LIN Taiwan
Mr.Klaas J. LUSTHOF The Netherlands
Dr.Elizabeth K. MARKER USA
Contributor Country
Dr.Maria Antonia MARTINEZ
GONZALEZ
Spain
Univ.-Prof Dr.Hans MAURER Germany
Ms.Madeline MONTGOMERY USA
Dr.Ashraf MOZAYANI USA
Prof.R. Klaus MUELLER Germany
Prof.Frank MUSSHOFF Germany
Prof Dr.Hugo NEELS Belgium
Dr.Adam NEGRUSZ USA
Dr.Robert OSIEWICZ USA
Dr.George REID Ireland
Alberto SALOMONE Italy
Prof.Harald SCHUETZ Germany
Robert M. SEARS USA
Prof.Gisela SKOPP Germany
Dr.Michael SLADE France
Dr.Michael L. SMITH USA
Dr.Feiga SOCHATCHEVSKI Brazil
Elizabeth SPRATT USA
Dr.Duncan W.S. STEPHEN UK
Walter STURM Switzerland
Prof.Osamu SUZUKI Japan
Svava THORDARDOTTIR Iceland
Prof.Donald R.A. UGES The Netherlands
Dr.John VASILIADES USA
Prof.Alain VERSTRAETE Belgium
Susan Connell VONDRAK USA
Dr.Viktor VORISEK Czech Republic
Dr.Michael J. WARD Canada
Prof. Dr..Wolfgang WEINMANN Switzerland
Prof.Robert WENNIG Luxembourg
Dr.Ruth E WINECKER USA
Dr.Charles L. WINEK USA
Tracey WINEK BALZER USA
Charles L. WINEK, JR. USA
Yi Ju YAO Singapore
Dr.Kosei YONEMITSU Japan
J. Robert ZETTL USA

ARGENTINA
1. Dr.Luis Alberto Ferrari
Laboratory Supreme
Court, Calle 12, No.2827
1896 City Bell-La Plata,
Buenos Aires,
Argentina
2. Oscar Alberto Locani
Lab Tox Yqca Leg Pod
Jud Na
Junin 760, Ciudad De
Buenos Aires, Buenos
Aires, Argentina
AUSTRALIA
Dr.John Lewis
PO Box 5571, West
Chatswood
NSW 1551, Australia
AUSTRIA
Dr.Walter Vycudilik
Knoedelhuettenstr 25/1/3,
A-1140 Wien, Austria
BELGIUM -
LUXEMBOURG
Prof. Willy Lambert
Lab Toxicology,
Harelbekestraat 72,
B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
BOLIVIA
Doris Sandra Uria
Huaita, Instituto Ciencia
Forense, Av. Suecia No
2226, Zona Villa Alalay,
Cochabamba, Bolivia
BRAZIL
Dr.Alice A. Da Matta
Chasin, Rua Pascoal Vita
515, Apto 131
CEP 05445-001, Sao
Paulo, SP, Brasil
CANADA
Dr.Graham Jones
Office of the Chief
Medical Examiner,
7007-116 St., Edmonton,
Alberta T6H 5R8, Canada
CHILE
1 Dr.Claudio Roberto
Lobos Galvez
Laboratorio Toxicogico
Y Medico Legal Iquique,
Bernardo O'Higgins
#2213, Iquique, Chile
2. Ana Toyos Diaz
Laboratorio Servicio
Medico Legal, Av. La Paz,
1012, Santiago, Chile
CHINA
1. Dr.Wing-Chi Cheng
7/F Homantin
Government Offices, 88
Chung Hau Str., Kowloon,
Hong Kong
2. Prof. Yao Liu
Institute of Forensic
Sciences, No 17 Muxidi
Nanli, West City, Beijing
100038, China
COLOMBIA
Isabel Riveros Toledo
Laboratorio Toxicologia,
Calle 46 # 40-35, Santa
Fe'Ole, Bogota D.C.,
Colombia
CROATIA
Dr Miran Cocklo
Dpet. Forensic Medicine
and Criminalistics, Rijeka
University School of
Medicine
B.Branchetta 20, 51000
Rijeka,
Croatia
CZECH REPUBLIC
Dr. Marie Balikova
1st Medical Faculty
& Hospital, Institute
of Forensic Med. and
Toxicology, Ke Karlovu 2
12808 Prague 2, Czech
Republic
DENMARK
Prof. Dr. Kristian Linnet
Dept. of Forensic
Chemistry, University of
Copenhagen, Frederik
de Fem Vej, 11, DK-2100,
Copenhagen, Denmark
EGYPT
Dr Magda El Karadawy
Medicolegal Dept. and
Toxicology, 126 El Galaa
St., Heliopolis, Cairo,
Egypt
FINLAND
Dr. Ilkka A Ojanpera
Dept of Forensic
Medicine, PO BOX 40,
FIN-00014 Univ. of Helsinki,
Helsinki, Finland
FRANCE
Dr. Patrick Mura
Laboratoir de Biochime
et Toxicologie, Centre
Hospitalier Universitaire,
B P 577, F-86021 Poitiers
Cedex, France
GERMANY
Dr Frank T. Peters, Institus
fuer Rechtsmedizin,
Universitaetsklinikum
Jena, Fuerstengraben 23,
D-07743, Jena, Germany
GREECE
Prof. Dr. Heleni Tsoukali
Dept of Forensic
Medicine & Toxicology
Faculty of Medicine,
Aristotle University, PO Box
325 Thessaloniki
54124, Greece
HUNGARY
Dr.Gabor Somogyi
National Inst. Forensic
Toxicology, Varanno Str.
2-4, H-1146 Budapest,
Hungary
IRELAND
Ms. Siobhan Stokes
Drug Treatment Centre
Board, 30-31 Pearse St.,
Dublin 2, Ireland
ISRAEL
Mr. Gopher Asher
Dept. Head of
Forensic Toxicology,
Clin. Toxicology &
Pharmacology, Sheba
Medical Center, Tel
Hashomer 56621, Israel
ITALY
1.Prof. Dr. S. Davide
Ferrara, Istituto di
Medicina Legale,
University of Padova,
Via Falloppio 50, I-35121,
Padova, Italy
2. Prof. Aldo Polettini,
Dept. of Medicine &
Public Health, Univ of
Verona, Piazzale le Scuro
10, 37134 Verona, Italy
JAPAN
Prof. Dr. Osamu Suzuki
Dept of Legal Medicine,
Hamamatsu University,
School of Medicine
1-20-1 Handayama,
Hamamatsu 431-3192,
JAPAN
JORDAN
Dr. Abdel Kader Battah
Forensic Medicine &
Toxicology Division,
Faculty of Medicine,
University of Jordan,
Amman 11942, Jordan
KOREA
Dr. Lee Sangki Li
Nat. Inst. of Scientific
Investigation, 331-1 Sinwol
7-dong, Yang Chun-Ku,
Seoul 158-097, Korea
LATVIA
Dr. Yevgeny Volgram
121-222c Maskavas Str.,
LV-1019 Riga, Latvia
NEW ZEALAND
Grant Moore
PO Box 151, Canterbury
Health Laboratory,
Christcurch, New Zealand
NORWAY
Lena Kristoffersen
Norwegian Institute of
Public Health, Division
of Forensic Toxicology
& Drug Abuse, P.O. Box
4404 Nydalen, NO-0403
Oslo, Norway
PHILIPPINES
Cesar C. Cagalawan
Security and Forensic
Ennterprises, Inc. Lot
10 Blk 14 White Hills,
Banawa, Cebu City 6000,
Philippines
TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
POLAND
Dr. Maria Kala
Institute of Forensic
Research, Westerplatte
Nr. 9, 31-033 Krakow,
Poland
PORTUGAL
Dr. Helena Maria S.F.
Teixeira
Instituto Nacional
de Medicina Legal,
Delegaçao De Coimbra
Largo Da Se Nova, 3000-
213 Coimbra, Portugal
RUSSIA
Dr. Raissa Romanovna
Krasnova,
Bureau of Forensic
Medicine - Moscow
Reg., Dept. of
Forensic Chemistry, 1st
Vladimirskaya Str., 33,
Bldg. 1, 111401 Moscow,
Russia
SINGAPORE
Dr Yi Ju Yao
Health Sciences Authority,
11 Outram Rd, Singapore
169078, Singapore
SLOVAK REPUBLIC
Zuzana Vassanyi
Specialized Institute of
Public Health
Ocha Sam, Cesta K
Nemocnici 1, SK-975 56
Banska Bystrica, Slovak
Republic
SLOVENIA
Dr. Majda Zorec Karlovsek
Institute of Forensic
Medicine, Medical
Faculty, University of
Ljubljana, Korytkova 2,
1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
SOUTH AFRICA
Prof. Hans K.L. Hundt
PO Box 13542, Noordstad
9302, Bloemfontein 9310,
South Africa
SPAIN
Dr. Carmen Jurado
Instituto Nacional de
Toxicologia y Ciencias
Forenses Avda. Doctor
Fedriani s/n, 41015 Sevilla,
Spain
SWEDEN
Dr. Robert Kronstrand
National Board of
Forensic Medicine, Dept.
of Forensic Chemistry
Atillerigatan, 12, S-58133
Linkøping, Sweden
SWITZERLAND
Dr.Werner Bernhard
Institute of Legal
Medicine, Bühlstrasse 20,
CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland
THAILAND
Dr. Ruangyuttikarn
Werawan
Dept. of Forensic
Medicine, Faculty of
Medicine
Chang Mai University,
Chang Mai 50200,
Thailand
THE NETHERLANDS
Prof. Dr.Donald R.A. Uges
University Medical Center
Groningen, Dept. of
Pharmacy, P.O. 30.001,
9700 RB Groningen, The
Netherlands
TURKEY
Dr.Serap Annette Akgur
EGE University, Faculty of
Medicine, Poison Center,
Zaum Aregefar yani, 35100
Bornova, Izmir, Turkey
UNITED KINGDOM
Dr.Steve George
Regional Toxicology
Laboratiry, City Hospital
Nhs Trust, Dudley Road,
Birmingham B18 7Qh, UK
UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA
1. Dr. Vina Spiehler
422 Tustin Ave., Newport
Beach, CA, 92663, USA
2.Prof. Dr. Dr (h.c) Marilyn
Huestis
683 Shore Rd, Severna
Park, MD 21146, USA
UZBEKISTAN
Dr. Mareta Ibragimova
Forensic Laboratory,
Tashkent University,
Said Mirakhmedova
143, Tashkent 700121,
Uzbekistan
VENEZUELA
Luis Eduardo Ramirez
Marcucci
Becario Academico,
Facultad de Farmacia y
Bioanalisis
Universidad de los Andes,
Merida, Estado Merida,
Venezuela
These details are also
available on www.tiaft.
org.
All regional
representatives should
inform the TIAFT treasurer/
bulletin editors of any
corrections, additions or
deletions to this list.
Page 59
Regional Representatives

TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
Deadlines
Early Registration ≤ July 31, 2011
Regular Registration ≤ Sept. 30, 2011
Late Registration ≥ Oct. 1, 2011
Auspices
Page 60
Sunday, October 2, 2011
08:00
Monday, October 3, 2011
Register now! Roundtable 1 Roundtable 2 Roundtable 3
08:30
12th International Congress of
Therapeutic Drug Monitoring &
Clinical Toxicology
October 2 – 6, 2011, Liederhalle Stuttgart,Germany
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
08:00
08:30
09:00
09:30
10:00
10:30
11:00
11:30
12:00
12:30
13:00
13:30
14:00
14:30
15:00
15:30
16:00
16:30
17:00
For Scientific Programme
and much more check
our website at:
www.iatdmct2011.de
Roundtable 7
Symposium 3
Immunosuppressants
Plenary 2
Alcohol biomarkers
Poster presentations
Oral presentations
Workshop 1
Modern
antiepileptic
drug TDM
Workshop 2
Personalized
treatment in
oncology
09:00
09:30
10:00
10:30
11:00
11:30
12:00
12:30
13:00
13:30
14:00
14:30
15:00
15:30
16:00
16:30
17:00
17:30
18:00
18:30
19:00
19:30
20:00
20:30
Pre Congress
TDM & CT
in psychiatry
Opening
Ceremony
Opening
Reception
Roundtable 8 Roundtable 9 Roundtable 10
Symposium 4
New trends in
mass spectrometry
Industry-Workshop
Industry-Workshop
BREAK
BREAK
Workshop 3
Pharmacokinetics
in
pregnancy
BREAK
Workshop 4
Biomarkers in
transplantation
medicine
Workshop 5
Pharmacogenetics
in
clinical practice
Symposium 1
TDM of anticancer drugs
Plenary 1
Transitioning TDM to
personalizec healthcare
Poster presentations
Oral presentations
Workshop
Critical Issues
Guidelines for best
practice of TDM
Wine & Cheese
Reception
Workshop 6
Method development for
HPLC-tandem mass
spectrometry
Symposium 2
Trends in clinical &
emergency toxicology
Industry-Workshop
BRE
BRE
Workshop
Pro & Contra
Monitoring of immunosuppressants:
LC-MS/MS
vs. immunoassays
Roundtable 11 Roundtable 12
Workshop 7
New sampling
strategies
M
p
dyn

AK
AK
Roundtable 4 Roundtable 5 Roundtable 6
BREAK
BREAK
Workshop
Young Scientists
Roundtable 13
BREAK
Workshop Workshop 8 8
olecular Molecular markers markers for for
harmaco- pharmaco- and toxico- and toxicoamicdynamic
drug drug monitoring monitoring
GCP Training Basis
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
08:00
08:30
09:00
09:30
10:00
10:30
11:00
11:30
12:00
12:30
13:00
13:30
14:00
14:30
15:00
15:30
16:00
16:30
17:00
17:30
18:00
18:30
19:00
19:30
20:00
20:30
Roundtable 14
Symposium 5
Antiinfectiva I:
Antivirals
Annual Meeting
Poster presentations
Symposium
Clinical Trials
& TDMCT
Congress Dinner
Thursday, October 6, 2011
08:00
08:30
09:00
09:30
10:00
10:30
11:00
11:30
12:00
12:30
13:00
13:30
14:00
14:30
15:00
15:30
16:00
16:30
17:00
Symposium 7
Antiinfectiva II:
Antibiotics
& antifungals
Plenary 3
Cancer metabolomics
by MS technology
Poster presentations
Oral presentations
Closing Ceremony
TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
Roundtable 15 Roundtable 16 Roundtable 17 Roundtable 18 Roundtable 19
Symposium 6
Emerging drugs
of abuse
Industry-Workshop
Oral presentations
Workshop
Pro & Contra
Meconium testing
Symposium 8
TDM in
different
age groups
Industry-Workshop
BREAK
BREAK
BREAK
BREAK
Workshop
Critical Issues
TDM for quality
management
and decision
BREAK
BREAK
Workshop
Critical Issues
Why PK/PD models
are so rarely used
in clinical settings?
Page 61

TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
Page 62

TIAFT BULLETIN ArTICLE
SUBMISSION GUIDELINES
Please follow the following guidelines when submitting
articles to the TIAFT bulletin.
Introduction
State the objectives of the work and provide an adequate
background, avoiding a detailed literature survey or a
summary of the results.
Material and methods
Provide sufficient detail to allow the work to be reproduced.
Methods already published should be indicated by a
reference: only relevant modifications should be described.
results
Results should be clear and concise.
Discussion
This should explore the significance of the results of the
work, not repeat them. A combined Results and Discussion
section is often appropriate. Avoid extensive citations and
discussion of published literature.
Conclusions
The main conclusions of the study may be presented in a
short Conclusions section, which may stand alone or form a
subsection of a Discussion or Results and Discussion section.
Essential title page information
• Title. Concise and informative. Titles are often used in
information-retrieval systems. Avoid abbreviations and
formulae where possible.
• Author names and affiliations. Where the family name
may be ambiguous (e.g., a double name), please indicate
this clearly. Present the authors' affiliation addresses (where
the actual work was done) below the names. Indicate all
affiliations with a lower-case superscript letter immediately
after the author's name and in front of the appropriate
address. Provide the full postal address of each affiliation,
including the country name, and, if available, the e-mail
address of each author.
• Corresponding author. Clearly indicate who will handle
correspondence at all stages of refereeing and publication,
also post-publication. Ensure that telephone and fax
numbers (with country and area code) are provided in
addition to the e-mail address and the complete postal
address. Contact details must be kept up to date by the
corresponding author.
Abstract
An abstract is not required for the TIAFT Bulletin.
Keywords
Immediately after the abstract, provide a maximum of 6
keywords, using American spelling and avoiding general
and plural terms and multiple concepts (avoid, for
example, "and", "of"). Be sparing with abbreviations: only
abbreviations firmly established in the field may be eligible.
These keywords will be used for indexing purposes of all
TIAFT Bulletins.
TIAFT BULLETIN VOLUME 41, 2011. No 1
Acknowledgements
List at the end of the article those individuals who provided
help during the research (e.g., providing language help,
writing assistance or proof reading the article, etc.).
Artwork
Color artwork
Please make sure that artwork files are in an acceptable
format (TIFF, EPS or hi res-JPG). It is important that any images
are the highest possible quality. Do not be concerned
about file size we can facilitate transfer of big files through
our own server. An e-mail to either Dimitri or Jochen will
suffice.
Tables
Number tables consecutively in accordance with their
appearance in the text. Place footnotes to tables below the
table body and indicate them with superscript lowercase
letters.
references
Citation in text
Please ensure that every reference cited in the text is also
present in the reference list (and vice versa). Any references
cited in the abstract must be given in full. Unpublished results
and personal communications are not recommended in
the reference list, but may be mentioned in the text. If these
references are included in the reference list they should
follow the standard reference style of the journal and
should include a substitution of the publication date with
either "Unpublished results" or "Personal communication"
Citation of a reference as "in press" implies that the item has
been accepted for publication.
reference style (based on Forensic Science International)
Text: Indicate references by number(s) in square brackets in
line with the text. The actual authors can be referred to, but
the reference number(s) must always be given.
Example: "..... as demonstrated [3,6]. Barnaby and Jones [8]
obtained a different result ...."
List: Number the references (numbers in square brackets) in
the list in the order in which they appear in the text.
Examples:
Reference to a journal publication:
[1] J. van der Geer, J.A.J. Hanraads, R.A. Lupton, The art of
writing a scientific article, J. Sci. Commun. 163 (2000) 51–59.
Reference to a book:
[2] W. Strunk Jr., E.B. White, The Elements of Style, third ed.,
Macmillan, New York, 1979.
Reference to a chapter in an edited book:
[3] G.R. Mettam, L.B. Adams, How to prepare an electronic
version of your article, in: B.S. Jones, R.Z. Smith (Eds.),
Introduction to the Electronic Age, E-Publishing Inc., New
York, 1999, pp. 281–304.
Any other enquiries should be emailed to:
tiaftbulletin@gmail.com,
thanks
Dimitri and Jochen
Page 63

UCT
CLEAN SCREEN XCEL TM is an
efficiency driven SPE column
which provides a clean sample
in three quick steps.
FORENSICS
SPE expertise
from UCT.....
1 2 3
.....to your laboratory
To learn more about CLEAN SCREEN XCEL TM , visit www.cleanscreenxcel.com