Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison between the enzymatic oxidation method and headspace gas chromatography with a flame ionization detector in the determination of postmortem blood ethanol

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ethanol is the most commonly encountered substance in forensic toxicology. Determining blood alcohol concentration (BAC) in autopsies accounts for the majority of work in forensic diagnosis. The most common method to assess BAC is the enzymatic oxidation method because of its low cost, easy operation, and high throughput. Still, the elevated lactate and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels in postmortem blood may affect accuracy. This study uses headspace gas chromatography with a flame ionization detector (HS-GC/FID) to assess the interference of lactate and LDH levels on BAC in 110 autopsied blood samples determined by the enzymatic oxidation method. The results showed that lactate and LDH levels in postmortem blood were higher than in normal blood. There was a weak correlation between the lactate levels and BAC difference (r = 0.23, p < 0.05) and a strong correlation between LDH levels and BAC difference (r = 0.67, p < 0.001). The differentiation of BAC between the enzymatic oxidation method and HS-GC/FID was significant (p < 0.001), confirming the interference significantly. All postmortem blood samples with lactate and LDH levels higher than regular lead to a positive error in determining BAC by enzymatic oxidation method. The study results suggest that the HS-GC/FID method should be used to determine BAC in postmortem blood samples instead of the enzymatic oxidation method to avoid mistakes in forensic diagnosis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Karch SB. Forensic issues in alcohol testing. New York: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Elisaf M, Kalaitzidis R. Metabolic abnormalities in alcoholic patients: focus on acid base and electrolyte disorders. J Alcohol Drug Depend. 2015;3:1.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Vonghia L, Leggio L, Ferrulli A, Bertini M, Gasbarrini G, Addolorato G. Alcoholism Treatment Study Group. Acute alcohol intoxication. Eur J Intern Med. 2008;19:561–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2007.06.033.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Levine BS, Caplan YH, Jones AW. Alcohol, principles of forensic toxicology. In: Barry SL, Sarah K, editors. Switzerland Springer Nature. Switzerland AG; 2020. p. 287–316.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dubowski KM. Alcohol Determination in the clinical laboratory. Am J Pathol. 1980;74:747–50. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/74.5.747.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Beutler HO. Ethanol, Methods of enzymatic analysis. In: Bergmeyer HU, editor. Academic Press. New York; 1984. p. 598–606.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Donaldson AE, Lamont IL. Estimation of post-mortem interval using biochemical markers. Aust J Forensic Sci. 2013;46:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2013.784356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Oakes SA. Cell injury, cell death, and adaptations, Robbins and Cotran pathologic basis of disease. In: Kumar V, Abbas A, Aster J, editors. Elsevier. Philadelphia; 2020. p. 33–69.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Coe JI. Postmortem chemistry of blood, cerebrospinal fluid, and vitreous humor Forensic Pathology, A Handbook for Pathologists. In: Fisher RS, Petty CS, editors. Department of Justice. US; 1977. p. 21–49.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Donaldson AE, Lamont IL. Biochemistry changes that occur after death: potential markers for determining post-mortem interval. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e82011. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082011.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Lythgoe AS. The activity of lactate dehydrogenase in cadaver sera: a comparison of different sampling sites. Med Sci Law. 1980;20:48–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/002580248002000110.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nine JS, Moraca M, Virji MA, Rao KN. Serum-ethanol determination: comparison of lactate and lactate dehydrogenase interference in three enzymatic assays. J Anal Toxicol. 1995;19:192–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/jat/19.3.192.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Powers RH, Dean DE. Evaluation of potential lactate - lactate dehydrogenase interference with an enzymatic alcohol analysis. J Anal Toxicol. 2009;33:561–3. https://doi.org/10.1093/jat/33.8.561.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bishop-Freeman SC, Bertholf RL, Powers RH, Mayhew LC, Winecker RE. False-positive enzymatic alcohol results in perimortem specimens. Lab Med. 2020;394–401. https://doi.org/10.1093/labmed/lmz082.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Reisfield GM. Alcohol and its biomarkers: clinical aspects and laboratory determination. Lab Med. 2015;46:e72–3. https://doi.org/10.1309/LMD9PAMUNKPA7DVN.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Thompson WC, MaIhotra D, Schammel DP, Blackwell W, Ward ME, Dasgupta A. False-positive ethanol in clinical and postmortem sera by enzymatic assay: elimination of interference by measuring alcohol in protein-free ultrafiltrate. Clin Chem. 1994;40:1594–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/40.8.1594.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Badcock NR, O’Reilly DA. False-positive Emit-st ethanol screen with post-mortem infant plasma. Clin Chem. 1992;38:434.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lefrere B, Wohrer D, Godefroy C, Soichot M, Mihoubi A, Nivet-Antoine V, Oualha M, Houze P. False-positive ethanol level in urine and plasma samples of a resuscitated infant. J Anal Toxicol. 2022;46:e21–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/jat/bkaa188.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Golby R, Ovakim D, Garg A. False-positive ethanol levels in modern laboratory assays. Clin Toxicol. 2020;58:853–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/15563650.2019.1687908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Nacca N, Hodgman MJ, Lao K, Elkins M, Holland MG. Can elevated lactate and LDH produce a false positive enzymatic ethanol result in live patients presenting to the emergency department? Clin Toxicol. 2018;56:189–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/15563650.2017.1357825.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Wineka CL, Wahba WW, Windisch RM, Winek CL Jr. Serum alcohol concentrations in trauma patients determined by immunoassay versus gas chromatography. Forensic Sci Int. 2004;139:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0379-0738(03)00262-7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Senkowski CM, Thompson KA. The accuracy of blood alcohol analysis using Headspace gas chromatography when performed on clotted samples. J Forensic Sci. 1990;35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hwang RJ, Beltran J, Rogers C, Barlow J, Razatos G. Measurement of uncertainty for blood alcohol concentration by headspace gas chromatography. J Can Soc Forensic Sci. 2017;50:114–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00085030.2017.1312069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. AAFS Standards Board. Standard practices for method validation in forensic toxicology. ANSI/ASB Standard 036. 1st Ed. 2019. https://aafs.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/036_Std_e1.pdf.

  25. AAFS Standards Board. Standard for the Validation of Procedures in Bloodstain Pattern Analysis. ANSI/ASB Standard 072. 1st Ed. 2019. https://aafs.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/072_Std_e1.pdf.

  26. Ministry of Health, Viet Nam. The quality standards of the method following decision no 2429/QĐ-BYT-Promulgation of criteria for quality assessment of medical laboratories. 2017. https://thuvienphapluat.vn/van-ban/The-thao-Y-te/Quyet-dinh-2429-QD-BYT-2017-Tieu-chi-danh-gia-muc-chat-luong-phong-xet-nghiem-y-hoc-351985.aspx.

  27. Costa I, Carvalho F, Magalhães T, Pinho PGd, Silvestre R, Dinis-Oliveira RJ. Promising blood-derived biomarkers for estimation of postmortem interval. Toxicology Res. 2013;1–26. https://doi.org/10.1039/c5tx00209e.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Industrial University of Ho Chi Minh City and Forensic Medicine Center of Ho Chi Minh City for facilities supports.

Funding

No funding was received for this study.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Nguyen Thi Thanh Xuan and Dinh Vu Le are equally contributed co-first authors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Forensic Medicine Center of Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City, 700000, Vietnam

    Nguyen Thi Thanh Xuan, Mai Thi Thanh, Le Dinh Son, Nguyen Viet Doanh, Dang Minh Thu, Nguyen Trong Tuan & Trang Khanh Duy

  2. Faculty of Chemical Engineering, Industrial University of Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City, 700000, Vietnam

    Dinh Vu Le

  3. Institute of Biotechnology and Food Technology, Industrial University of Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh, 700000, Vietnam

    Tran Dinh Thang

  4. University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City, 700000, Vietnam

    Lam Vinh Nien

Authors
  1. Nguyen Thi Thanh Xuan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dinh Vu Le
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mai Thi Thanh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Le Dinh Son
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nguyen Viet Doanh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Dang Minh Thu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Nguyen Trong Tuan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Trang Khanh Duy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Tran Dinh Thang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Lam Vinh Nien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dinh Vu Le.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xuan, N.T.T., Le, D.V., Thanh, M.T. et al. A comparison between the enzymatic oxidation method and headspace gas chromatography with a flame ionization detector in the determination of postmortem blood ethanol. Forensic Sci Med Pathol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-024-00791-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-024-00791-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation