A group of 16 volatile substances (ethyl acetate, 2-propanol, 1-propanol, methanol, acetone, ethanol, acetaldehyde, diethyl ether, methyl ethyl ketone, 1-butanol, 2-butanol, t-butanol, isobutanol, 2-methyl-1-butanol, 3-methyl-1-butanol and 1-pentanol) were qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed through a method developed for volatiles with endogenous production in putrefaction and submersion situations. The method was validated for blood, urine and vitreous humor, using a gas chromatograph (Varian 450-GC) with a flame ionization detector coupled to a headspace injector (HS-GC-FID). The vials were prepared by diluting 100 µL of the sample of interest in 1 mL of internal standard (acetonitrile 100 mg/L), using two capillary columns (VF-624ms and VF-5ms) with different polarities to ensure that all test compounds would be properly identified and undoubtedly distinguished from the rest. All volatiles were studied in a range of 50 to 2,000 mg/L in terms of selectivity/specificity, detection and quantification limits, linearity and calibration model, precision, accuracy, bias, robustness and stability according to the Scientific Working Group for Forensic Toxicology. Detection and quantification limits were between 1 to 8 mg/L and 4 to 24 mg/L, respectively, with coefficient of variation values under 10% in bias studies and in intermediate precision studies for most substances. The developed method was applied to real cases to test the method.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pinto et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: