Carbon monoxide poisoning from indoor barbecues--incidents reported to the German-speaking Poison Information Centers and the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) in Berlin

From 2008 to the end of 2009 the Joint Poison Information Center (PIC) in Erfurt observed 7 incidents involving 17 persons (1 fatality) with signs of carbon monoxide poisoning from indoor barbecues (COFIB). To find out whether COFIB is a regional or a general phenomenon in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, all information about COFIBs recorded by the 11 German-speaking Poison Information Centers and the BfR Berlin were retrospectively analyzed for the period 2000 to 2009. In all, 60 COFIBs (accidental: 90.0 %, suicidal: 8.3%, reason unknown: 1.7%) involving 146 individuals were reported. The number of incidents increased from one case with 2 persons in 2000 to 18 cases involving 34 persons in 2009. The 146 victims (female 26.7%, male 27.4%, gender unknown 45.9%; adults 58.2%, children 24.7%, age unknown 17.1%) lived in 15 of the 16 federal states of Germany and in Switzerland. The highest number of victims was found in Bavaria (23), Brandenburg (18), and Baden-Wuerttemberg (18). The symptoms according to the Poisoning Severity Score were none to mild in 60.3%, moderate in 13.7%, severe in 11.6%, fatal in 6.9% and unratable in 7.5%. No clear correlation was found between the carboxyhemoglobin concentration and the severity of the symptoms. As a rising number of COFIBs often involving several individuals was observed from 2000 to 2009, the general public was informed about the risks of indoor barbecues.     

Setting the Record Straight: Comment on Gurley,Piechowski, Sheehan,and Gray (2014) on the Admissibility of the Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-PAS) in Court

Gurley et al. (Psychological Injury and Law 7:9–17, 2014) express reservations about the admissibility of testimony based on the Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-PAS) in court. They question whether there is sufficient evidentiary foundation in the underlying psychometrics and adequate general acceptance among psychologists for R-PAS-based testimony to meet either the Daubert or Frye criteria for admissibility and also raise doubts about how well it meets the criteria for the use of forensic tests proposed by Heilbrun (Law and Human Behavior 16:257–272, 1992). This invited comment addresses their concerns about the admissibility of R-PAS-based testimony and corrects some erroneous statements about the psychometrics of R-PAS and the pertinent empirical literature. Gurley et al. characterize R-PAS as being in competition with the established Comprehensive System (CS; Exner 2003), though we clarify that it is actually an evolutionary development from the CS and designed to be a replacement for it. We also point out how their conclusion that R-PAS-based forensic testimony may be hazardous or premature is based on an insufficient familiarity with the R-PAS scientific and professional literature, a misinterpretation of the Frye and Daubert evidentiary standards, and a mischaracterization of several of Heilbrun’s (Law and Human Behavior 16:257–272, 1992) criteria for the use of tests in forensic testimony.     

Detection of morphine and codeine in blood samples with gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (NCI and PCI) for differentiating codeine use from use of heroin and morphine

Morphine and codeine were isolated from blood with C18 Bond Elut columns and derivatised with pentafluoropropionic anhydride (PFPA). The PFPA-derivatives were examined by means of gas chromatography/mass spectrometry using electron impact and chemical ionisation (positive and negative mode). The negative chemical ionisation, as most sensitive, was applied for the quantitation of both examined substances in forensic blood samples.