固相萃取GC／MS分析血中10种常见农药和杀鼠药

目的 采用固相萃取（SPE）GC／MS分析技术,快速检验血中常见农药及杀鼠药。方法采用SPE-GC／MS法分析血中马拉硫磷、敌敌畏、甲基对硫磷、甲拌磷、灭多威、杀鼠迷、速灭威、久效磷、毒死蜱、灭害威等10种药物;比较OasisHLBcartridge、C18和C23种固相萃取柱同步提取的回收率及洗脱剂种类、洗脱剂和缓冲液用量对回收率的影响。结果固相萃取柱Oasis HLB cartridge提取率较高,在72．6％-112．0％之间;采用3mL氯仿做洗脱剂时回收率较好,在75．7％～127．2％之间;2mL磷酸盐为缓冲液最佳剂量。结论本文方法具有操作简便快捷,回收率高、重现性好、无杂质干扰等特点,可用于法庭毒物的检验。     

SPE—GC／MS、GC／NPD法检测血液中苯丙胺类毒品

目的利用GC／MS、GC／NPD与固相萃取（SPE）技术相结合,建立血液中苯丙胺类毒品的定性定量分析方法。方法采用Bond—ElutCerti{y固相柱、甲醇淋洗、二氯甲烷／异丙醇／氨水（78／20／2）洗脱固相萃取分离提取,比较了不同PH体系、稀释状态、洗脱溶剂对提取回收率的影响,建立血液中苯丙胺类毒品的GC／MS、GC／NPD定性定量分析方法。结果以GC／NPD分析AM、MA、MDA和MDMA浓度在15ng／mL-2000ng／mL、10ng／mL～1600ng／mL、20ng／mL-3000ng／ml、20ng／mL-3000ng／mL范围内线性关系良好,AM、MA、MDA和MDMA的检测限分别为10ng／mL、8ng／mL、15ng／mL、15ng／mL,方法平均回收率大于85％,标准偏差小于5％,GC／MS-Scan检测限分别为40ng／mL、32．0ng／mL、60．0ng／mL、60．0ng／mL。结论此方法可满足苯丙胺类毒品滥用者的血液定性定量分析。     

离子交换柱法萃取血样中4种巴比妥类药物

目的建立血样中4种常见巴比妥类药物的固相萃取方法。方法采用Oasis MAX固相萃取柱对样品进行预处理,以2%氨水淋洗2,%甲酸-甲醇洗脱,GC/NPD定量检验,GC/MS定性检验。结果血样中4种常见巴比妥类药物平均萃取回收率达80%以上,以信噪比10/1计,最小定量限为1～2μg/mL,以信噪比3/1计,检出限为0.5～1μg/mL,在1～50μg/mL范围内,线性相关系数均在0.99以上。结论本文固相萃取方法检出限低,回收率高,选择性强,可应用于血样中4种常见巴比妥类药物的检测。     

GC/MS、GC/NPD法检测血液中氯胺酮

目的利用GC/MS、GC/NPD与固相萃取（SPE）技术相结合,建立血液中氯胺酮的定性定量分析方法。方法选择4-苯基丁胺为内标,采用Bond-Elut Certify固相柱萃取、二氯甲烷：异丙醇：氨水（78∶20∶2,v/v/v）洗脱的固相萃取分离技术,比较不同pH体系、洗脱溶剂对回收率的影响,建立血液中氯胺酮的GC/MS、GC/NPD定性定量分析方法。结果以GC/NPD分析氯胺酮在6.0～5000ng/mL范围内线性关系良好,GC/MS-Scan定性检测限为20.0ng/mL。方法平均回收率达96.9%,标准偏差小于5%。结论此方法可满足氯胺酮毒品滥用者血液定性定量分析。     

固相萃取-气相色谱法提取全血中的外源性褪黑素

目的建立血样中褪黑素的固相萃取方法。方法采用OasisHLB固相萃取柱提取,GC/NPD定量检验,GC/MS定性检验。结果血样中褪黑素平均萃取回收率达80%以上,最低检出限0.02μg/mL,线性良好,相关系数R2=0.9978。结论该方法操作简便快速,提取回收率高,重现性好,提取物干净,可用于实际案件当中。     

不同填料固相萃取柱提取鱼塘水中拟除虫菊酯类农药的比较

拟除虫菊酯类能有效防治各类作物的害虫因此被广泛使用，这类农药对人畜低毒，但对鱼、虾等水生生物毒性较大，近年来常有此类投毒案发生。目前固相萃取法（solid phase extraction，SPE）在法庭科学领域已有广泛应用，但用于水中拟除虫菊酯类杀虫剂痕量检测方面的报道较少。为此，本文采用不同填料固相萃取柱提取鱼塘水中拟除虫菊酯类农药，运用气相色谱电子捕获检测器（即GC／ECD）进行检测，比较不同固相萃取小柱的提取效率。     

血清中盐酸曲马多的膜式固相萃取及GC／MS／SIM测定

目的建立血清中盐酸曲马多的膜式固相萃取(SPE)气-质联用分析方法。方法1mL血清用2mL0.1mol/L磷酸盐缓冲液(pH6)稀释后,用含有C18和强酸型强阳离子交换基团的SPECC18AR/MP3固相萃取柱萃取,洗脱液为含2%氨水的乙酸乙酯;选择SKF525作为内标物,用GC/MS/SIM定量测定。结果在加标量为0.1、0.2和0.5μg/mL的血清样品中,盐酸曲马多的回收率分别为98.9%、92.5%和84.8%,5次测定的RSD分别为3.2%、8.7%和10.9%;线性范围为0.1～4μg/mL,多项式回归相关系数r2=0.9939;检出限为21ng/mL;同一根萃取柱,连续使用5次,没有出现堵塞和污染,回收率及RSD未见下降。结论本方法适合于法医毒物分析。     

基质分散固相萃取-气质联用法分析人血中拟除虫菊酯类农药

目的建立人血中7种拟除虫菊酯类农药的基质分散固相萃取(QuECHERS)—气质联用(GC/MS)快速分析方法。方法以C18、PSA为吸附剂,利用基质分散固相萃取与气质联用法结合分析血中联苯菊酯、甲氰菊酯、高效氯氟氰菊酯、氟氯氰菊酯、氯氰菊酯、氰戊菊酯、溴氰菊酯7种菊酯类农药。结果7种菊酯类农药线性范围为1.0~10.0μg/mL,RSD为5.6~10.3%,回收率为79.6~108.6%,最低检出限为0.1~0.3μg/mL。结论该分析方法操作便捷、实用,适用于拟除虫菊酯类农药的中毒案件分析。     

固相萃取/气相色谱法检测全血中的扎来普隆

目的建立全血中扎来普隆的固相萃取/气相色谱检测方法。方法采用Oasis HLB固相萃取柱,5%甲醇水淋洗,二氯甲烷洗脱,GC/NPD定量检验,GC/MS定性检验,并对检测条件进行考察。结果扎来普隆与血中杂质分离良好,平均萃取回收率达89%以上,最低检出限20ng/mL,50～2000ng/mL内线性良好,相关系数R2=0.9945,日内RSD为3.1%～4.2%,日间RSD 5.8%～6.7%。结论该方法操作简便快速,提取回收率高,重现性好,提取物杂质少,可用于实际案件的检验。     

SPE-GC／MS检测生物样品中利多卡因、罗哌卡因、布比卡因

目的建立生物样品中利多卡因、罗哌卡因、布比卡因的固相萃取提取方法和气质检测方法。方法采用Oasis HLB固相萃取柱,以GC／MS定性定量。结果生物样品中利多卡因、罗哌卡因、布比卡因平均萃取回收率达74％以上,检测限0．01μg／mL,线性关系良好,相关系数R2=0．9900以上。结论方法操作简便快速,萃取回收率高,重现性好,可用于实际案件。     

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.