4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Concentration of drugs in blood of suspected impaired drivers

期刊

FORENSIC SCIENCE INTERNATIONAL
卷 153, 期 1, 页码 11-15

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.04.025

关键词

driving under the influence of drugs (DUID); drugs; alcohol

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Analytical records concerning 440 living drivers suspected of driving under the influence of drug (DUID) were collected and examined during a 2 years period ranging from 2002 to 2003 in canton de Vaud, Valais, Jura and Fribourg (Switzerland). This study included 400 men (91%) and 40 women (9%). The average age of the drivers was 28 +/- 10 years (minimum 16 and maximum 8 1). One or more psychoactive drugs were found in 89% of blood samples. Half of cases (223 of 440, 50.7%) involved consumption of mixtures (from 2 to 6) of psychoactive drugs. The most commonly detected drugs in whole blood were cannabinoids (59%), ethanol (46%), benzodiazepines (13%), cocaine (13%), amphetamines (9%), opiates (9%) and methadone (7%). Among these 440 cases, 11-carboxy-THC (THCCOOH) was found in 59% (median 25 ng/ml (1-215 ng/ml)), Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in 53% (median 3 ng/ml (1-35 ng/ml)), ethanol in 46% (median 1.19 g/kg (0.14-2.95 g/kg)), benzoylecgonine in 13% (median 250 ng/ml (29-2430 ng/ml)), free morphine in 7% (median 10 ng/ml (1-111 ng/ml)), methadone in 7% (median I 10 ng/ml (27-850 ng/ml)), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) in 6% (median 218 ng/ml (10-2480 ng/ml)), nordiazepam in 5% (median 305 ng/ml (30-1560 ng/ml)), free codeine in 5% (median 5 ng/ml (1-13 ng/ml)), midazolam in 5% (median 44 ng/ml (20250 ng/ml)), cocaine in 5% (median 50 ng/ml (15-560 ng/ml)), amphetamine in 4% (median 54 ng/ml (10-183 ng/ml)), diazepam in 2% (median 200 ng/ml (80-630 ng/ml)) and oxazepam in 2% (median 230 ng/ml (165-3830 ng/ml)). Other drugs, such as lorazepam, zolpidem, mirtazapine, methaqualone, were found in less than 1% of the cases. (C) 2005 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据