Quantification of LSD in illicit samples by high performance liquid chromatography

In the present study, a method using high performance liquid chromatography to quantify LSD, in blotter papers seized in Minas Gerais, was optimized and validated. Linearity, precision, recovery, limits of detection and quantification, and selectivity were the parameters used to evaluate performance. The samples were extracted with methanol:water (1: 1) in an ultra-sound bath. The linearity between 0.05 and 20.00 μg/mL (0.5 and 200.0μg of LSD/blotter) was observed with satisfactory mean intra and inter assay precision (RSDr = 4.4% and RSD R = 6.4%, respectively) and with mean recoveries of 83.4% and 84.9% to the levels of 1.00 and 20.00 μg/mL (10 and 200μg LSD/blotter). The limits of detection and quantification were 0.01 and 0.05 μg/mL, respectively (0.1 and 0.5 μg of LSD/blotter). The samples of blotters (n =22) were analyzed and the mean value of 67.55 μg of LSD/blotter (RSD=27.5%) was found. Thus, the method used showed satisfactory analytical performance, and proved suitable as an analytical tool for LSD determination in illicit samples seized by police forces.

No presente trabalho, um método utilizando cromatografia líquida de alta eficiência foi otimizado e validado para quantificar o LSD em selos apreendidos em Minas Gerais. A linearidade, precisão, recuperação, limites de detecção e quantificação e seletividade foram os parâmetros de desempenho avaliados. As amostras foram extraídas com metanol: água (1:1) em banho de ultra-som. A linearidade entre 0,05 a 20,00 mg/mL (0,5 a 200 μg LSD/blotter) foi observada com precisão média, intra e inter ensaio, satisfatória (RSDr = 4,4% e RSD R = 6,4%, respectivamente) e com recuperações médias de 83,4% e 84,9% para os níveis de LSD de 1,00 e 20,00 mg/mL (10 e 200 μg LSD/selo). Os limites de detecção e quantificação encontrados foram de 0,01 e 0,05 mg/mL, respectivamente (0,1 e 0,5 μg LSD/selo). As amostras de selos (n = 22) foram analisadas e o valor médio encontrado foi de 67,55 μg de LSD/selo (RSD% = 27,5). Desta forma, o método analítico apresentou desempenho satisfatório, capaz de ser utilizado como instrumento de análise para a determinação do LSD em amostras ilícitas apreendidas pelas forças policiais.

Five year survey of toxicological testing of clinical body fluid samples at the poison control centre in the Indian State of Kerala.

The Poison Control Centre (PCC) at Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Kerala, was established in June 2003, but became fully operational from January 2005. There are only four PCCs in India recognized by the World Health Organization, of which this is one. A five-year (2005 to 2009) review of biological samples analyzed for chemicals, drugs and toxins by the analytical laboratory attached to the PCC is presented to give an indication of the commonest types of poisoning encountered in this region of India, aside from venomous bites and stings. Such data are not adequately available so far, which is also true for other parts of the country. Results of the survey show that there has been a steady rise in the receipt of samples over the entire period from 432 in 2005 to 601 in 2009. Among the samples analyzed, the commonest toxicants are pesticides, pharmaceuticals, heavy metals and alcohols. Of the pesticides, organophosphates accounted for the maximum number, while most of the remaining comprised zinc phosphide, carbamates, pyrethroids, paraquat, phosphorus, and bromadiolone. Aluminium phosphide, which is a common pesticide in some other regions, was virtually non-existent, while zinc phosphide, a rodenticide, is the second highest in incidence. Of the pharmaceuticals, the largest number comprised sedativehypnotics, while antipyretic drugs, especially paracetamol, accounted for a most of the remaining. Of the metals, the commonest was lead, followed by arsenic, mercury, iron, etc. Requests for copper testing were common, but mostly pertained to Wilson‟s disease, and not toxicity. Among the alcohols, ethanol was the commonest. Even though Kerala is rich in flora, plant toxins were low in incidence, because of the difficulty in testing for such toxins, as compared to chemicals. Bites and stings were not included in this study. Therapeutic monitoring of drugs, which accounts for a large number of samples received by the laboratory was also not part of the survey.