小体积液相萃取-GC/MS法检验尿液中的MDPV

目的建立小体积液相萃取-GC/MS法检验尿液中的MDPV分析方法。方法将添加MDPV标准品的尿液调p H值为9,采用小体积二氯甲烷进行提取,有机相直接进行GC/MS分析。结果 MDPV的线性范围为0.05μg/m L-0.20μg/m L(R2=0.9965),检出限为0.02μg/m L,提取回收率高于85%,精密度小于10%。结论本文建立的方法操作简单、灵敏、快速、经济,适用于吸毒检验工作中尿液中MDPV的检验。     

高效液相色谱法快速分离测定血浆中的乌头碱

目的建立血液中乌头碱的高效液相色谱快速分析方法。方法以空白人血浆添加乌头碱标准品对血液样品的前处理方法、仪器测试条件、线性范围、精密度、回收率进行全面考查,建立乌头碱定量分析方法。对血液中所含乌头碱的浓度进行测定。结果该方法在血液中的线性范围是0.1~5.0μg/m l;最低检测浓度为0.1μg/m l;日内、日间精密度分别小于3.7%和4.5%;回收率在(97.0±4.1)%以上。结论所建方法实用、便捷,可对血液中乌头碱的含量进行快速测定。     

高效液相色谱法测定人血液、尿液中的2,4-D丁酯

目的建立检测血液、尿液中2,4-D丁酯的高效液相色谱分析方法。方法采用正己烷为样品萃取溶剂,色谱柱为Zorbax SB-Aq柱,流动相为V（甲醇）∶V（水）=60∶40。结果 2,4-D丁酯在血液和尿液中的线性范围分别为0.10～10.00μg/mL（r≥0.999 8）和0.08～8.00μg/mL（r≥0.999 5）,检测限分别为0.002 0μg/mL和0.001 8μg/mL,准确度为94.5%～104.5%,日内、日间精密度≤4.5%。结论本研究建立的血液、尿液中2,4-D丁酯的提取和HPLC检测方法,可应用于2,4-D丁酯中毒的快速检验和中毒死亡的法医学鉴定。     

家兔玻璃体和脑脊液中异烟肼的高效液相色谱分析

目的　建立玻璃体和脑脊液中异烟肼的高效液相色谱分析方法。方法　以香草醛为衍生化试剂 ,经柱前衍生为异烟肼 -香草醛腙 ,直接对体液样品中的腙进行定性、定量分析 ,并以空白兔体液添加标准异烟肼对样品的前处理方法、仪器条件、线性范围、精密度、回收率进行全面考查后 ,测定急性染毒家兔玻璃体和脑脊液中的异烟肼浓度。结果　用上述方法分析兔玻璃体和脑脊液中异烟肼 ,其线性范围为 0 2～ 12 0 μg/ml,检测限 0 2 μg/ml,日内、日间精度均小于 4 9% ,回收率均在 97 1%以上。异烟肼在急性染毒家兔玻璃体中的浓度为 74 60± 7 40 μg/ml;脑脊液中为 88 95± 10 12 μg/ml。 结论　本文所建方法适用于异烟肼中毒者玻璃体和脑脊液中异烟肼的检测。     

固相萃取毛细管区带电泳法测定全血中甲基苯丙胺

目的建立全血中甲基苯丙胺的固相萃取毛细管区带电泳法检验方法。方法血液采用OasisHLB固相萃取小柱直接萃取,BeckmanP/ACEMDQ毛细管电泳仪区带法分析。结果回归方程y=0.0083x-0.0164,线性范围5～75μg/mL(r=0.994),日内精密度RSD=2.22%,日间精密度RSD=5.31%,盐酸甲基苯丙胺质量浓度为25.0μg/mL的全血相对回收率(91.63±2.5)%。电泳分离良好,空白无干扰。结论本方法操作简便,适用于全血中甲基苯丙胺的检验。     

人脑脊液中利多卡因的高效液相色谱分析

目的 建立人脑脊液中利多卡因的高效液相色谱(HPLC)分析方法。方法 以空白人脑脊液添加标准利多卡因进行HPLC分析,并系统考察实验中的色谱条件、样品处理方法、线性关系、精密度及回收率。结果 所建方法的线性范围是1.0～20.0μg·ml-1(r=0.9993),最低检测浓度为1.0μg·ml-1(S/N≥3),日内、日间检测的相对标准偏差≤3.0％,回收率为98.3％～102.7％。结论 所建方法定量检测人脑脊液中的利多卡,灵敏、准确、快速。     

固相萃取/LC-MS/MS测定血液中的白藜芦醇

目的建立血液中白藜芦醇的固相萃取/LC-MS/MS方法。方法自制固相萃取柱,在长约13cm的酸性滴定管中,底部填入约0.02g玻璃棉,依次加入柱填料PSA 0.15g,Florisil 0.3g,Silica 0.45g。对样本进行固相萃取,采用LC-MS/MS方法进行检测,运用保留时间和多反应监测(MRM)方式对血液中白藜芦醇进行定性定量分析。结果回收率为95.66%～98.58%,最低检测限(LOD)为1.79μg/mL,线性范围2.5～20μg/mL;相关系数为0.9997。结论本文所建方法,适用于血液中白藜芦醇的检测。     

血液、尿液中氯胺酮及其代谢物去甲氯胺酮的HPLC分析

目的 建立血液、尿液中氯胺酮及其代谢物去甲氯胺酮的高效液相色谱(HPLC)分析方法.方法 以非那西丁为内标,检材加入10%的氢氧化钠溶液调节pH值为14,用甲苯提取,离心后取有机层,水浴下吹干,乙腈定容后进HPLC仪分析.结果 检测血液中氯胺酮和去甲氯胺酮的线性范围均是0.05～10μg/mL(r2＞0.999 3),检测尿液中氯胺酮和去甲氯胺酮的线性范围均是0.01～50 μg/mL(r2＞0.999 5).氯胺酮和去甲氯胺酮在血液和尿液中的检测限分别是0.006 μg/mL和0.003 μg/mL.血液和尿液中氯胺酮和去甲氯胺酮的回收率不低于82.4%.检测血液和尿液中氯胺酮和去甲氯胺酮的日内精密度和日间精密度均小于10.0%.将所建的方法应用于给大鼠氯胺酮后的血液和尿液中的氯胺酮和去甲氯胺酮的测定,得到了氯胺酮和去甲氯胺酮在大鼠的药时曲线和尿排药速率曲线. 结论本方法简便、快捷,适用于血液、尿液中氯胺酮及其代谢物去甲氯胺酮的分析.     

血中水合氯醛及其代谢物的GC-MS/MS和HPLC-MS/MS检测

目的建立血液中水合氯醛及其代谢物的色谱串联质谱检测方法,用于法医案件的检验。方法血液检材经乙酸乙酯萃取后气质联用选择离子扫描(SIM)检测水合氯醛和三氯乙醇,经乙腈沉淀蛋白后液质联用负离子模式下多反应监测(MRM)检测三氯乙酸。结果水合氯醛及其代谢物的线性范围分别是100ng/mL～15μg/mL、500ng/mL～20μg/mL和500ng/mL～15μg/mL,线性关系良好,R~2均大于0.998,最低检出限分别为15ng/mL、130ng/mL和30ng/mL,最低定量限分别为50ng/mL、500ng/mL和100ng/mL;日内精密度分别在2.26%～7.31%、3.09%～7.23%和2.79%～5.37%;日间精密度分别在4.14%～7.03%、2.18%～4.43%和2.75%～4.96%;提取回收率分别为92.72%～106.30%、94.22%～103.70%和89.05%～104.50%。并对水合氯醛相关案件进行检测,心血中水合氯醛浓度为411.34ng/mL,三氯乙醇浓度为9.49μg/mL,三氯乙酸浓度为8.32μg/mL。结论本文建立的水合氯醛及其代谢物的检测方法准确简单快速,可应用于水合氯醛中毒案件的法医学鉴定。     

全血中氯霉素的固相萃取方法

目的建立全血中氯霉素的固相萃取方法。方法在空白血中添加标准氯毒素,采用HLB、MCX固相柱萃取,HPLC法测定了线性范围、精密度、回收率。结果回收率分别为：HLB为69.1%,RSD为6.21%,MCX为70.1%,RSD为4.34%。标准工作曲线Y=18.1094X-0.4822,相关系数r=0.9999,线性范围1.0-20.0ug/L,最小检出量3ng。标准添加工作曲线Y=-2.1165X＋14.0459,相关系数r=0.9996,最小检出限0.5μg/mL（S/N=10∶1）。结论此二种萃取柱均可用于氯霉素的固相萃取。     

Bhartṛhari and Maṇḍana on Avidyā

The concept of avidyā is one of the central categories in the Advaita of Śaṇkara and Maṇḍana. Shifting the focus from māyā, interpreted either as illusion or as the divine power, this concept brings ignorance to the forefront in describing duality and bondage. Although all Advaitins accept avidyā as a category, its scope and nature is interpreted in multiple ways. Key elements in Maṇḍana’s philosophy include the plurality of avidyā, individual selves as its substrate and the Brahman as its field (viṣaya), and the distinction in avidyā between non-apprehension and misapprehension. A closer investigation shows that Maṇḍana is directly influenced by Bhartṛhari’s linguistic non-dualism in developing the concept of avidyā. This study also compares other key constituents such as vivartta and pariṇāma that are relevant to the analysis of avidyā. As the concept of counter-image (pratibimba) emerges as a distinct stream of Advaita subsequent to Maṇḍana, this study also compares the application of pratibimba in the writings of Bhartṛhari and Maṇḍana.     

Unraveling the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Kāvyaprakāśa</Emphasis>: Jayadeva Pīyūṣavarṣa’s idiosyncratic sequence of topics in the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Candrāloka</Emphasis>

In his twelfth century alaṃkāraśāstra, the Candrāloka, Jayadeva Pīyūṣavarṣa reverses the sequence of topics found in Mammaṭa’s Kāvyapr-akāśa, an earlier and immensely popular work. With such a structural revisionism, Jayadeva asserts the autonomy of his own work and puts forth an ambitious critique of earlier approaches to literary analysis. Jayadeva investigates the technical and aesthetic components of poetry in the first part of the Candrāloka, prior to his formal semantic investigations in the latter half of the text, thus suggesting that aesthetic evaluations of poetry beneficially inform scientific investigations of language. Jayadeva’s organization of his chapters on the semantic operations, moreover, intimates that the study of suggestive and metaphoric functions of language clarifies our understanding of denotation, which is conventionally understood to be the primary and direct path of verbal designation.     

Immigration,intermarriage and the changing face of Europe in the post war period

In this article we compare the propensity to intermarry of various migrant groups and their children who settled in Germany, France, England, Belgium and the Netherlands in the post-war period, using a wide range of available statistical data. We try to explain different intermarriage patterns within the framework of Alba and Nee's assimilation theory and pay special attention to the role of religion, colour and colonial background. We therefore compare colonial with non colonial migrants and within these categories between groups with ‘European’ (Christian) and non-European (Islam, Hinduism) religions. First of all, religion appears to be an important variable. Migrants whose faith has no tradition in Western Europe intermarry at a much lower rate than those whose religious backgrounds correspond with those that are common in the country of settlement. The rate of ethnic endogamous marriages in Western Europe are highest in Hindu and Muslim communities, often regardless if they came as guest workers or colonial migrants. Whereas differences in religion diminish the propensity to intermarry, colour or ‘racial’ differences on the other hand seem to be less important. This is largely explained by the pre-migration socialisation. Furthermore, the paper argues that the attention to institutions, as rightly advocated by Richard Alba and Victor Nee, needs a more refined and layered elaboration. Institutions, often as barriers to intermarriage, do not only emanate from the receiving society, but also—be it less formalized—within migrant communities. Especially religions and family systems, but also organized nationalist feelings, can have a profound influence on how migrants think about endogamy. Finally, strong pressures to assimilate, often through institutionalized forms of discrimination and stigmatization, not only produce isolation and frustrate assimilation (with resulting low intermarriage rates), but can also stimulate assimilation by 'passing' mechanisms. These factors, together with a more comparative perspective, are not completely ignored in the new assimilation theory, but—as this study of Western European intermarriage patterns stresses—deserve to be included more systematically in historical and social scientist analyses.     

Turning a Madhyamaka Trick: Reply to Huntington

Huntington (2007); argues that recent commentators (Robinson, 1957; Hayes, 1994; Tillemans, 1999; Garfield and Priest, 2002) err in attributing to Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti a commitment to rationality and to the use of argument, and that these commentators do violence to the Madhyamaka project by using rational reconstruction in their interpretation of Nāgārjuna’s and Candrakīrti’s texts. Huntington argues instead that mādhyamikas reject reasoning, distrust logic and do not offer arguments. He also argues that interpreters ought to recuse themselves from argument in order to be faithful to these texts. I demonstrate that he is wrong in all respects: Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti deploy arguments, take themselves to do so, and even if they did not, we would be wise to do so in commenting on their texts.     

The Supreme Array Scripture: A New Interpretation of the Title “Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra”

This article argues for a new interpretation of the Sanskrit compound gaṇḍa-vyūha as it is used in the common title of the Mahāyāna text the Gaṇḍavyūha-Sūtra.The author begins by providing a brief history of the sūtra’s appellations in Chinese and Tibetan sources. Next, the meanings of gaṇḍa (the problematic member of the compound) are explored. The author proposes that contemporary scholars have overlooked a meaning of gaṇḍa occurring in some compounds, wherein gaṇḍa can mean simply “great,” “big” or “massive.” This general sense is particularly common in the compound gaṇda-śaila (a “massive rock” or “boulder”) and is found in such texts as the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, the Harivaṃśa and the Harṣacarita. Following the discussion of Gaṇḍa, the author examines the term vyūha (“array”) as it is used in the Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra. The article concludes with the suggestion that a more appropriate translation of the Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra would be “The Supreme array Scripture.”     

The Mūlāvidyā Controversy Among Advaita Vedāntins: was Śaṅkara Himself Responsible?

The concept of avidyā or ignorance is central to the Advaita Vedāntic position of Śȧnkara. The post-Śaṅkara Advaitins wrote sub-commentaries on the original texts of Śaṅkara with the intention of strengthening his views. Over the passage of time the views of these sub-commentators of Śaṅkara came to be regarded as representing the doctrine of Advaita particularly with regard to the concept of avidyā. Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati, a scholar-monk of Holenarsipur, challenged the accepted tradition through the publication of his work Mūlāvidyānirāsaḥ, particularly with regard to the avidyādoctrine. It was his contention that the post-Śaṅkara commentators brought their own innovations particularly on the nature of avidyā. This was the idea of mūlāvidyā or ‘root ignorance’, a positive entity which is the material cause of the phenomenal world. Saraswati argues that such an idea of mūlāvidyā is not to be found in the bhāṣyas (commentaries) of Śaṅkara and is foisted upon Śaṅkara. This paper attempts to show that although Śaṅkara may not have explicitly favoured such a view of mūlāvidyā, his lack of clarity on the nature of avidyā left enough scope for the post-Śaṅkara commentators to take such a position on avidyā.     

Evaluation of six presumptive tests for blood, their specificity, sensitivity, and effect on high molecular-weight DNA

Luminol, leuchomalachite green, phenolphthalein, Hemastix, Hemident, and Bluestar are all used as presumptive tests for blood. In this study, the tests were subjected to dilute blood (from 1:10,000 to 1:10,000,000), many common household substance, and chemicals. Samples were tested for DNA to determine whether the presumptive tests damaged or destroyed DNA. The DNA loci tested were D2S1338 and D19S433. Leuchomalachite green had a sensitivity of 1:10,000, while the remaining tests were able to detect blood to a dilution of 1:100,000. Substances tested include saliva, semen, potato, tomato, tomato sauce, tomato sauce with meat, red onion, red kidney bean, horseradish, 0.1 M ascorbic acid, 5% bleach, 10% cupric sulfate, 10% ferric sulfate, and 10% nickel chloride. Of all the substances tested, not one of the household items reacted with every test; however, the chemicals did. DNA was recovered and amplified from luminol, phenolphthalein, Hemastix, and Bluestar, but not from leuchomalachite green or Hemident.     

Illumination,Imagination, Creativity: Rājaśekhara,Kuntaka, and Jagannātha on <Emphasis Type="Italic">Pratibhā</Emphasis>

Sanskrit poeticians make the visionary faculty of pratibhā a necessary part of the professional poet’s make-up. The term has a pre-history in Bhartṛhari’s linguistic metaphysics, where it is used to explain the unitary perception of meaning. This essay examines the relation between pratibhā and possible theories of the imagination, with a focus on three unusual theoreticians—Rājaśekhara, Kuntaka, and Jagannātha Paṇḍita. Rājaśekhara offers an analysis of pratibhā that is heavily interactive, requiring the discerning presence of the bhāvaka listener or critic; he also positions pratibhā in relation to Bildung (vyutpatti) and practice. For Kuntaka, pratibhā, never an ex nihilo creation by a poet, serves as the basis for the peculiar forms of intensified insight and experience that constitute poetry; these may also involve the creative scrambling and re-articulation of the object in terms of its systemic composition. At times, Kuntaka’s pratibhā comes close to a strong notion of imaginative process. But the full-fledged thematization of the imagination, and of pratibhā as its support and mechanism, is best seen in the seventeenth-century debates preserved for us by Jagannātha. A link is suggested between the discourse of poetic imagination in Jagannātha and similar themes that turn up in Indo-Persian poets such as Bedil.     

Preventing Homelessness for System‐Involved Youth

Too many youth and young adults find themselves on the streets, couch‐surfing with friends, in emergency shelters or worse, after exiting the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. In some circumstances, youth have had court hearings until their exit from the legal system, but those hearings have not focused on long‐range plans of youth and emergencies youth may encounter. In other circumstances, there has been little or no planning prior to discharge, especially for young people who leave the juvenile justice system. Courts can and should prevent, alleviate or end youth homelessness for youth who appear before them through strategies that are enumerated in the recently‐passed NCJFCJ resolution. This article expounds on three of these strategies – coordinating transition and re‐entry plans, insisting on effective legal representation of youth, and utilizing sound judicial leadership. It also describes the concurrent efforts of the Coalition for Juvenile Justice and the American Bar Association's Homeless Youth Legal Network to remove legal barriers and improve outcomes for youth and young adults experiencing homelessness.     

Best practices for structuring a family court parenting plan evaluation under the 2022 AFCC Guidelines

Evaluation appointment orders provide enforceable scaffolding for conduct of family court parenting plan evaluations, and use of the evaluator's reports, feedback, file, and testimony. Unlike a contract, a stipulated or adjudicated appointment order is directly enforceable by the family court. It unambiguously positions the evaluator as the family court's appointee – answerable directly to the court and, in some jurisdictions, protected by quasi-judicial immunity from damages claims. A well-crafted appointment order governs the roles and expectations of the court, the evaluator, the parties, the lawyers, and the collateral witnesses. An appointment order mandates the legal duties, rights, powers, and responsibilities of the professionals, the parties, and the collateral witnesses. At minimum, an appointment order articulates the legal basis for the appointment, the purpose and scope of the evaluation, compensation of evaluator, and the duty of the parties to participate in the process. A written evaluation protocol or procedures statement discloses in advance the methods of investigation and assessment that the evaluator intends to use. Together, the appointment order and written protocol help the evaluator, lawyers, parents, and judge manage the complexity of the evaluation process.