Work

ANSI/ASB Standards 119, 120 and 121 Set Minimum Analytical Scope and Sensitivity for Subdisciplines of Forensic Toxicology

Year: 2021

Type: article

Abstract: Recently, the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) announced through their Academy Standards Board (ASB) the publication of three related standards: ANSI/ASB Standard 119, Standard for the Analytical Scope and Sensitivity of Forensic Toxicological Testing of Blood in Medicolegal Death Investigations (1); ANSI/ASB Standard 120, Standard for the Analytical Scope and Sensitivity of Forensic Toxicological Testing of Blood in Impaired Driving Investigations (2); and ANSI/ASB Standard 121, Standard for the Analytical Scope and Sensitivity of Forensic Toxicological Testing of Urine in Drug-Facilitated Crime Investigations (3). As noted in the scope of these documents, they establish the minimum requirements for target analytes and analytical sensitivity when performing forensic toxicological testing of specimens collected in cases that fall within these distinct categories. If your laboratory is conducting forensic toxicological testing in one or more of these three subdisciplines, you are encouraged to review the relevant standards and ensure that your laboratory is compliant with these applicable minimum requirements. The documents were initially drafted by the Organization of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Sciences and further developed through an ANSI-approved standard development process at ASB. This process ensured that all interested parties were afforded opportunities to provide comments on the documents, and those comments were then evaluated by a group of experts representing forensic toxicology practitioners from state, local, federal and private laboratories; academia; researchers; as well as industry and legal representatives in order to achieve consensus approval of the final document. These three subdisciplines of forensic toxicology—postmortem toxicology, driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) toxicology and drug-facilitated crime (DFC) toxicology—each have unique challenges and customer needs. Medicolegal death investigations often require the postmortem forensic toxicology laboratory to provide information that allows for the determination of whether drugs and chemicals contributed to the cause and/or manner of death. This is usually done by looking for relatively high concentrations of a larger number of analytes. Toxicological testing in impaired driving investigations is generally more confined to drugs capable of causing impairment by testing blood samples collected near the time in which impairment was suspected. Drug-facilitated crimes often suffer from delayed reporting such that the toxicological testing must be able to detect relatively low concentrations of the more common central nervous system (CNS) depressants and stimulants used in these crimes. Each of these toxicological subdisciplines is trying to answer slightly different questions from the investigators, often by looking for drugs and metabolites at varying concentrations or with different sensitivity requirements. It is important to note that these are minimum requirements. All three standards emphasize that the drugs listed are not inclusive of all drugs that may be important. Laboratories are encouraged to exceed these minimum standards by expanding the list of drugs they test for in these different types of cases and attempting to detect even lower concentrations of each drug and metabolite when appropriate to do so. The Society of Forensic Toxicologists (SOFT) has long recognized the unique challenges associated with these different types of toxicological investigations through its committees: the Drugs and Driving Committee, the Drug-Facilitated Crimes Committee and the Postmortem Toxicology Committee. In fact, similar efforts to create guidelines for toxicological testing in these subdisciplines were started within these SOFT committees. For example, members of the Drugs and Driving Committee, in conjunction with the National Safety Council’s Alcohol, Drugs and Impairment Division, published a number of recommendation papers that were relied upon in the creation of ANSI/ASB Standard 120 (4–7). Likewise, the Drug-Facilitated Crimes Committee has maintained an extensive list of drugs and metabolites to test for in these types of cases, along with recommended minimum performance limits (8). Further, SOFT has been an important supporter of creating these standards by providing subject matter expertise from these committees to assist in their development. ANSI/ASB Standards 119, 120 and 121 should drive the forensic toxicology field toward more consistent testing between laboratories. They should also enable proficiency test providers to improve their scope of testing for these subdisciplines and to help demonstrate that laboratories are capable of meeting these minimum requirements. Moreover, it is hoped that these documents will encourage accrediting bodies to expand their programs to better evaluate conformity with these standards. This is publication 22.07 of the FBI Laboratory Division. Names of commercial manufacturers are provided for identification purposes only, and inclusion does not imply endorsement of the manufacturer, or its products or services by the FBI. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the FBI or the U.S. Government.

Source: Journal of Analytical Toxicology

DOI: 10.1093/jat/bkab120

Authors: Marc A LeBeau, Curt E Harper, Robert D Johnson, Joseph H Kahl, Lisa Reidy

Institutions: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences, Dade County Medical Examiner Department, University of Miami

Language: English

Topic: Forensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis

Subfield: Toxicology

Field: Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics

Domain: Life Sciences

SDG: Good health and well-being

Open Access status: hybrid

Estimated APC paid: $4,143