体液中常见滥用药物的系统筛选分析

本文建立了体液中常见滥用药物的筛选分析体系.尿液或血液经固相萃取(SPE)或液提取(LLE)后,直接用GC/NPD分析或经TFA、BSTFA衍生化后用GC/MS分析.方法适用于同时分析甲基苯丙胺、MDMA、度冷丁、去甲度冷丁、曲马多、美沙酮、EDDP、可卡因、苯甲酰芽子碱、可待因、安定、氯丙嗪、吗啡、单乙酰吗啡等十四种常见滥用药物及代谢物.SPE法和LLE法回收率分别为66～102%和50～86%,最低检出限为2-5ng/ml尿.涉毒案件的鉴定应用表明该分析方法简便、快速、可靠.     

五氟丙酰衍生化-气相色谱/质谱联用法分析尿液中7-氨基硝西泮

目的用五氟丙酰衍生化-气相色谱/质谱联用法分析尿液中硝西泮的主要代谢物7-氨基硝西泮。方法尿液经乙醚萃取后,用五氟丙酰酸酐(PFPA)进行衍生化,得到7-氨基硝西泮衍生化物的总离子流色谱图和质谱图。结果根据7-氨基硝西泮衍生化物色谱的保留时间和质谱中主要特征离子的质荷比进行定性分析;用7-氨基氟硝西泮做内标,以7-氨基硝西泮和内标衍生化物定量离子的色谱峰面积比与浓度的关系进行定量分析。结论用五氟丙酰衍生化-GC/MS分析尿液中硝西泮的主要代谢物7-氨基硝西泮的方法定性、定量灵敏准确,测定结果可应用于司法鉴定。     

用GC／ECD方法分析海洛因中毒尿液吗啡代谢物

目的　考查尿检材中海洛因的代谢物吗啡和单乙酰吗啡的液液萃取条件、三氟乙酰化和气相色谱电子捕获检测 (GC/ECD)条件。方法　以烯丙吗啡为内标 ,氯仿∶异丙醇 (9∶1)为液相萃取剂萃取尿中的吗啡和单乙酰吗啡 ,采用MBTFA衍生化 (三氟乙酰化 ) ,GC/ECD检测。结果　尿中加样相对回收率吗啡 89% ,单乙酰吗啡 75 % ,最小检测量吗啡 5 0ng ,单乙酰吗啡 10 0ng。通过实验兔的中毒实验 ,对尿检材进行了分析。 结论　所建立的萃取与检测方法分析海洛因中毒尿检材中的吗啡准确、灵敏 ,可用于海洛因的吸毒检验     

苯丙胺类毒品三氟乙酰化气一质联用分析

目的　考查了N甲基双三氟乙酰胺 (MBTFA)衍生化试剂对苯丙胺类毒品的衍生化效果与衍生化条件 ,建立该类毒品三氟乙酰化后的定性定量分析条件。方法　用三氟乙酰化气一质联用分析方法。结果　获得了衍生化产物经气质联用分析后的总离子流色谱图、质谱图及质谱断裂规律 ,以及各种定量参数。结论　经三氟乙酰化后分离效果得到改善 ,且衍生化完全 ,可用于该类毒品的定量分析。     

尿中苯丙胺、甲基苯丙胺、MDA和MDMA的固相微萃取和GC/MS/SIM测定

目的研究固相微萃取(SPME)用于尿中苯丙胺(AMP)、甲基苯丙胺(MET)、3,4-亚甲二氧基苯丙胺(MDA)和3,4-亚甲二氧基甲基苯丙胺(MDMA)的提取。方法样品调节至碱性和用盐饱和后用顶空SPME,内标为MET-d5。萃取纤维为100μm聚二甲基硅氧烷(PDMS)。用气质联用选择离子检测(GC/MS/SIM)。结果0.2μg/ml加标尿样,AMP、MET、MDA和MDMA的富集倍数分别为22,60,13和47。检出限(S/N=3)为0.4～9.5ng/ml。线性范围为0.05～1μg/ml。0.2、0.5和1.0μg/ml加标尿样,相对回收率77.9%～112.4%,变异系数2.7%～18.0%(n=5)。用该方法分析5个案件样品,和常规液液萃取结果接近。结论顶空SPME法用于尿中AMP、MET、MDA和MDMA等化合物的分析,无需有机溶剂,富集效率高,提取-富集-进样一体化,简单方便实用。     

衍生化-气相色谱法在体内药物分析中的应用

本文对应用衍生化-气相色谱技术检测体液中吗啡、可待因和可卡因及其代谢物苯甲酰爱冈宁的研究及其进展进行了综述。为解决吸毒者血液和尿液等体液中有关毒品及其代谢物的微量分析提供了一种先进、可靠和灵敏的检测技术。     

人体中可卡因代谢物：尿液中四种未报道过的可卡因代谢物的鉴定

在体内,可卡因由于酶的作用和化学过程迅速转变为代谢物,因此通常尿中仅能提出很少可卡因。尿中两种主要代谢物为苯甲酰牙子碱及牙子碱甲基酯。Amber 最近报道可卡因在尿中14～17%以苯甲酰牙子碱形式被提出,12～21%以牙子碱甲基酯形式被提出。另外报道的体内尿中可卡因代谢物包括:降可卡因、牙子碱、苯甲酰降牙子碱、脱水芽子碱甲基酯、苯甲酰环上羟基化的可卡因、羟基、甲氧基取代的苯甲酰芽子碱。本文报道一种扩展的GC/MS 方法,用于分析药物试验中收集的1例尿样,该     

用五氟苄基溴对五氯酚进行衍生化的方法

目的五氟苄基溴(PFBBr)衍生化试剂对五氯酚进行衍生化研究。方法运用GC/MS、GC/ECD印证分析衍生化产物。结果改变了五氯酚的挥发性,提高检测灵敏度,在本文控制的实验条件下,五氯酚-PFBBr衍生物的检测限可达1pg。结论为检测微量五氯酚提供了一种有效手段。     

尿中五氯酚和2.4-二氯-6-硝基苯酚气相色谱分析

目的建立利用气相色谱分析检测尿中五氯酚和2,4-二氯-6-硝基苯酚的方法。方法取空白尿液添加五氯酚和2.4-二氯-6-硝基苯酚标准品及内标2.4-二氯苯酚,经乙酸酐衍生化后,采用气相色谱法进行检测,并对提取方法、衍生化条件等进行考察。结果经气相色谱分析,尿中五氯酚和2.4-二氯-6-硝基苯酚可得到有效分离,无杂质干扰且峰形较好。在pH值为2条件下,以环己烷作为萃取溶剂为最佳萃取条件。衍生化优选条件为使用10灿乙酸酐并加入10μL无水吡啶,60℃反应30min。结论采用气相色谱法检测尿中五氯酚和2.4-二氯-6-硝基苯酚,方法简单、结果准确,可在实际办案中应用。     

尿中MDMA及其代谢物的GC和GC／MS分析

考察MDMA在人体内的代谢以及建立尿中MDMA和体内主要代谢物MDA的分析方法。尿样水解后经液-液提取处理,用GC／MS（EI、PCI）和GC／FID法分析。人摄入MDMA后尿中MDA和原体MDMA比约为0．10～0．14。GC／MS／SIM和GC／FID法的最低检出限为2ng／ml和50ng／ml,回收率大于85％,变异系数小于10％。该法简便快速、灵敏度高、结果可靠,可用于MDMA滥用者的尿样鉴定。MDA／MDMA浓度比可作为评判毒分结果的参考指标。     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.