Keywords
Abstract
Zaharli moddalar bilan zaharlanishlar sud-tibbiy amaliyotda o‘lim sababini aniqlash, zaharlanish faktini tasdiqlash yoki inkor etish, toksikantning organizmga tushish yo‘lini baholash hamda aniqlangan moddaning o‘lim mexanizmidagi ehtimoliy rolini belgilashni talab qiladigan murakkab ekspertiza obyektlaridan biridir. Mazkur holatlarda sud-tibbiy tekshiruv natijalarining ishonchliligi nafaqat murda tekshiruvi va morfologik belgilarni baholashga, balki biologik materiallarni to‘g‘ri tanlash, saqlash, tashish, laboratoriya-toksikologik tahlilni validatsiyalangan usullar yordamida bajarish va olingan natijalarni klinik-anamnestik hamda autopsik ma’lumotlar bilan kompleks interpretatsiya qilishga bog‘liq. So‘nggi yillarda toksikologik ekspertizada gaz xromatografiya–mass-spektrometriya (GC-MS), suyuqlik xromatografiya–tandem mass-spektrometriya (LC-MS/MS), yuqori aniqlikdagi mass-spektrometriya (HRMS), keng qamrovli tizimli toksikologik tahlil va ma’lumotlarga asoslangan skrining yondashuvlarining qo‘llanilishi sezilarli darajada kengaydi. Ayniqsa, yangi psixoaktiv moddalar, kombinatsiyalangan zaharlanishlar va biologik namunalarda juda past konsentratsiyalarda uchraydigan toksikantlarni aniqlash an’anaviy skrining usullarining imkoniyatlarini cheklamoqda. Shu sababli zamonaviy ekspertiza birgina analitni aniqlashdan ko‘ra, imkon qadar keng spektrli skrining, keyinchalik selektiv tasdiqlash va miqdoriy baholashni o‘z ichiga olgan ko‘p bosqichli algoritmga asoslanmoqda. Postmortem redistribusiya, parchalanish, metabolik o‘zgarishlar, namuna matritsasining xususiyatlari va saqlash sharoitlari toksikologik natijalarni sezilarli o‘zgartirishi mumkinligi sababli natijalarni talqin qilish alohida metodologik ahamiyat kasb etadi. Zamonaviy standartlar analitik metodlarni validatsiya qilish, analit identifikatsiyasi uchun yetarli mezonlarni belgilash, o‘lchash noaniqligini hisobga olish va laboratoriya sifat tizimini ta’minlashni talab qiladi. Mazkur maqolada zaharli moddalar bilan zaharlanishlarda sud-tibbiy va toksikologik ekspertizaning zamonaviy bosqichlari, biologik namuna tanlash tamoyillari, instrumental tahlil imkoniyatlari, postmortem o‘zgarishlarning ekspert xulosasiga ta’siri, yangi toksikantlarni aniqlash muammolari hamda ekspert natijalarini kompleks interpretatsiya qilishning ilmiy-amaliy jihatlari tahlil qilinadi.
References
1. Rygaard, K., Pan, M., Nielsen, M. K. K., Dalsgaard, P. W., Rasmussen, B. S., & Linnet, K. (2023). Overview of systematic toxicological analysis strategies and their coverage of substances in forensic toxicology. Analytical Science Advances, 4(3–4), 96–103. Wiley-VCH.
2. Wille, S. M. R., Desharnais, B., Pichini, S., Di Trana, A., Busardò, F. P., Wissenbach, D. K., & Peters, F. T. (2022). Liquid chromatography high-resolution mass spectrometry in forensic toxicology: What are the specifics of method development, validation and quality assurance for comprehensive screening approaches? Current Pharmaceutical Design, 28(15), 1230–1244. Bentham Science Publishers.
3. Feigel, B., Adamowicz, P., & Wybraniec, S. (2024). Recent advances in analysis of new psychoactive substances by means of liquid chromatography coupled with low-resolution tandem mass spectrometry. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 416(1), 107–124. Springer.
4. Boscolo-Berto, R. (2024). Challenges and future trends of forensic toxicology to keep a cut above the rest. Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 33(5), 423–425. Wroclaw Medical University.
5. Abdelaal, G. M. M., Hegazy, N. I., Etewa, R. L., & Elmesallamy, G. E. A. (2024). Postmortem redistribution of drugs: A literature review. Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology, 20, 1483–1490. Springer.
6. American Academy of Forensic Sciences Standards Board. (2019). ANSI/ASB Standard 036: Standard Practices for Method Validation in Forensic Toxicology. 1st ed. Academy Standards Board.
7. American Academy of Forensic Sciences Standards Board. (2023). ANSI/ASB Standard 113: Standard for Identification Criteria in Forensic Toxicology. 1st ed. Academy Standards Board.
8. Sarkisian, M., & Rodda, L. N. (2024). The use of sequential window acquisition of all theoretical fragment ion spectra (SWATH), a data-independent acquisition high-resolution mass spectrometry approach, in forensic toxicological regimes: A review. Drug Testing and Analysis, 17(2), 300–310. Wiley.
9. Ip, S. C. Y., Chan, C. W., Chan, C. W., Chu, A., Chung, W. W., Hui, J. W. S., Ku, K. W., Lee, W. S., Lo, K. M., Poon, K. C., Wong, W. C., Cheung, B. K. K., & Cheng, J. Y. K. (2026). Interpol review of forensic toxicology, 2023–2025. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 13, 100694. Elsevier.
10. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2025). Early Warning Advisory on New Psychoactive Substances: Toxicology and forensic laboratory information. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Vienna.
11. American Academy of Forensic Sciences Standards Board. (2023). Standard for Identification Criteria in Forensic Toxicology: ANSI/ASB Standard 113-23. Academy Standards Board, 1st ed.
12. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2020). ANSI/ASB Standard 036-19: Standard Practices for Method Validation in Forensic Toxicology. Organization of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science, NIST.