Search This Blog

Popular Posts

Lets Always Remeber Little Caylee Marie Anthony and get her Justice

Caylee Marie Anthony Case

Caylee Marie Anthony Case

On myspace http://www.myspace.com/themissingandforgotten

Monday, February 28, 2011

The State must have some key evidence on Casey Anthony Case



















ORLANDO, Fla. -- Prosecutors said they are not going to use three high-profile pieces of evidence against Casey Anthony when she goes to trial in May for the murder of her daughter Caylee, according to a document (read it) obtained by WFTV on Monday


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
READ: State's Witness List And Evidence Schedule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


State prosecutors wrote that they are not going to use the jail video of Casey when she found out that Caylee Anthony's remains had been found near their house.

Prosecutors also said they are not going to use Casey's statements to investigators after her arrest for the murder of her daughter Caylee. In the statement, Casey said that investigators would not trick her into a confession.

Lastly, prosecutors said they are not going to use Casey's statements to her jail pen pal, Maya Derkovic, who told WFTV that Casey talked about giving Caylee chloroform to knock her out.

9 comments:

  1. Chloroform

    Related Information: Chemical Sampling - Chloroform
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Method no.: 05


    Matrix: Air


    Target concentration: 10 ppm (49 mg/m3)


    Procedure: Collection on charcoal adsorbent, desorption with carbon disulfide, analysis by gas chromatography using a flame ionization detector.


    Detection limit based
    on recommended air volume: 0.11 ppm


    Recommended air volume
    and sampling rate: 10 L at 0.2 L/min


    Standard error of estimate
    at the target concentration:
    (Section 4.3) 8.5%


    Status of method: Evaluated method. This method has been subjected to the established evaluation procedures of the Organic Methods Evaluation Branch.


    Date: May 1979 Chemist: Duane Lee



    Organic Methods Evaluation Branch
    OSHA Analytical Laboratory
    Salt Lake City, Utah


    1. General Discussion
    1.1. Background
    1.1.1. History

    In 1946, the American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienist (ACGIH) published a list of Maximum Allowable Concentrations (MAC) which gave a value of 100 ppm for chloroform. This was changed to a Threshold Limit Value (TLV) and reduced to a time-weighted average of 50 ppm in 1959 (Ref. 5.1). OSHA has adopted a ceiling value of 50 ppm for chloroform in workplaces (Ref. 5.2). In March 1976, NIOSH issued a "Current Intelligence Bulletin" on chloroform. The recommendation was made that no worker be exposed to chloroform in excess of 10 ppm determined as a time-weighted average exposure (Ref. 5.3). For this reason, the analytical and sampling procedures must be evaluated to insure an adequate method exists for lower levels. In FY 1978, the OSHA Analytical Laboratory analyzed 72 samples for chloroform.

    1.1.2. Toxic effects (This section is for information only and should not be taken as the basis of OSHA policy.)

    Animal studies have been conducted on the toxic effects of chloroform. Exposure to chloroform by ingestion, inhalation, and intravenous administration has produced fatty degeneration and necrosis of the liver, and kidney impairment. Inhalation experiments have shown depression of the nervous system, dilation of pupils of the eyes, reduced reaction to light, and reduced intraocular pressure. Studies also indicate carcinogenic effects of chloroform. In rats, it produced epithelial tumors of the kidney. In mice, it produced hepatocellular carcinomas (Ref. 5.3).

    In humans, chloroform was used as an anesthetic. Death from its use as an anesthetic has resulted from liver damage and from cardiac arrest (Ref. 5.4). Also, an effect from acute exposure is depression of the central nervous system (Ref. 5.5). From occupational exposure, studies have found episodes of lassitude, dry mouth, depression, irritability and painful urination (Ref 5.3). There is no evidence of any association of cancer with chloroform exposure.

    ReplyDelete
  2. .1.3. Worker exposure

    NIOSH estimates that 40,000 persons are exposed occupationally to chloroform. The majority of these workers handle small amounts of chloroform (Ref. 5.3).

    1.1.4. Use and operations where exposure occurs

    Chloroform was discovered almost simultaneously by Liebig and Soubeirain in 1831 (Ref. 5.6). Initially, it was used for an anesthetic until the toxic effects were noticed, which reduced its use. Presently, most of the chloroform produced is used in the production of fluorocarbons for refrigerants and fire fighting aids. It is also used as a solvent for extraction of vitamins and purification of antibiotics. During 1974, 302 million pounds of chloroform were produced in the United States (Ref. 5.3).

    Industries where chloroform is used include those producing biological products, pharmaceutical preparations, paint and allied products, paper milling, petroleum refining and metal industries, and surgical supplies, as well as hospitals (Ref. 5.3).

    1.1.5. Physical properties (Refs. 5.1 and 5.5)

    molecular weight: 119.39
    specific gravity: 1.49845 at 15/4°C
    melting point: -63.5°C
    boiling point: 61.26°C
    vapor pressure: 200 mm Hg (25°C)
    vapor density: 4.1 at 25°C (air=1)
    color: colorless liquid
    chemical formula: CHCl3


    other names: trichloromethane; trichloroform; methenyl trichloride; formyl trichloride; methyl trichloride

    1.2. Detection limit, precision, sensitivity and working range
    1.2.1. The detection limit for the analytical procedure is 5.3 ng per injection with a coefficient of variation 0.08 at this level (Section 4.1). The detection limit was determined using 1-µL injections.

    1.2.2. The pooled coefficient of variation of the analytical procedure over the range of 0.213 to 1.068 mg per sample is 0.029 (Section 4.2). This represents an air concentration range of 4.4 to 21.9 ppm based on the recommended sampling and analytical procedures.

    1.2.3. The sensitivity of the analytical procedure over a concentration range representing 0.5 to 2 times the PEL or target concentration based on the recommended air volume is 58812 area units per mg/mL. The sensitivity is determined by the slope of the calibration curve (Section 4.2). The sensitivity will vary somewhat with the particular instrumentation used in the analysis.

    1.2.4. The lower limit of the estimated working range, assuming adequate desorption efficiency is 0.11 ppm. The upper limit of the working range is dependent on the capacity of the collection medium.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 1.3. Accuracy
    1.3.1. The overall procedure must provide results that are within 25% or better at the 95% confidence interval.

    1.3.2. The recovery of analyte from the collection medium after storage must be 75% or greater.

    1.3.3. The overall procedure has met the above validation criteria (Section 4.3).
    1.4. Advantages
    1.4.1. The sampling procedure is convenient.

    1.4.2. The analytical procedure is quick, sensitive, and reproducible.

    1.4.3. Reanalysis of the samples is possible.
    1.5. Disadvantages

    If other compounds are present, the GC run time must be lengthened so the late eluting peaks will not interfere with the next sample.
    2. Sampling Procedure
    2.1. Apparatus
    2.1.1. An approved and calibrated personal sampling pump whose flow can be determined with ±5% at the recommended flow.

    2.1.2. Charcoal tubes: Glass tube, with both ends heat-sealed, 7.0-cm × 6-mm o.d. × 4-mm i.d., containing 100-mg front and 50-mg backup sections of 20/40 mesh charcoal.
    2.2. Reagents

    None required

    2.3. Sampling technique
    2.3.1. Immediately before sampling, break the ends of the charcoal tube. The size of the holes in the broken ends of the tubes must be at least one half the i.d. of the tube. All tubes must be from the same lot.

    2.3.2. Connect the charcoal tube to the sampling pump with flexible tubing. The short section of the charcoal tube is used as a backup and should be positioned nearer the sampling pump.

    2.3.3. The tube should be placed in a vertical position during sampling to minimize channeling.

    2.3.4. Air being sampled should not pass through any hose or tubing before entering the charcoal tube.

    2.3.5. Seal the charcoal tube with plastic caps immediately after the sampling.

    2.3.6. With each batch of samples, submit at least one blank tube from the same lot used for samples. This tube should be subjected to exactly the same handling as the samples (break, seal, transport) except that no air is drawn through it.

    2.3.7. Transport the samples (and corresponding paperwork) to the lab for analysis.

    2.3.8. If bulk samples are submitted for analysis, they should be transported in glass containers with Teflon-lined caps. These samples must not be put in the same container used for the charcoal tubes

    ReplyDelete
  4. 2.4. Breakthrough

    A sample was taken on the primary portion of a charcoal tube (Lot 107) from an atmosphere containing 20 ppm chloroform and an average relative humidity of 79% at 0.203 L/min. The breakthrough volume was 38.8 L.

    2.5. Desorption efficiency

    The desorption efficiency, from liquid injections on charcoal tubes (Lot 107), averages 95.9% for 0.24 to 1.1 mg per tube, which is 4.8 to 21.8 ppm for a 10-L air volume (Section 4.4).

    2.6. Recommended air volume and sampling rate
    2.6.1. The recommended air volume is 10 L.

    2.6.2. The recommended sampling rate is 0.2 L/min.
    2.7. Interferences (sampling)
    2.7.1. At the present time, it is unknown if any compound would severely interfere with the collection of chloroform on charcoal. In general, the presence of other solvents will decrease the breakthrough volume for a particular solvent.

    2.7.2. Any compound which is suspected of interfering in the collection or analysis should be listed on the sampling data sheet.
    2.8. Safety precautions
    2.8.1. Safety glasses should be worn when breaking the ends of the tubes.

    2.8.2. The broken ends of the tubes should be protected to avoid injury to the person being sampled.

    2.8.3. When working in environments containing flammable vapors, do not provide any spark source from equipment used or pumps.

    2.8.4. Observe all safety practices for working in hazardous areas.
    3. Analytical Procedure
    3.1. Apparatus
    3.1.1. A gas chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization detector.

    3.1.2. A number of GC columns are available and adequate to separate chloroform from carbon disulfide and the internal standard, which was pentane in this study. The column used for this study was a 10-ft × 1/8-in. stainless steel 0.1% SP-1000 coated on 80/100 mesh Carbopack C.

    3.1.3. An electronic integrator or other suitable method of measuring peak area.

    3.1.4. Two-milliliter vials with Teflon-lined caps.

    3.1.5. Microliter syringes, 10-µL for preparing standards, 1-µL for sample injections.

    3.1.6. Pipets for diluting standards. A 1-mL for dispensing solvent for desorption, or a 1-mL dispenser pipet.

    3.1.7. Volumetric flasks, convenient sizes for preparing standards.
    3.2. Reagents
    3.2.1. Carbon disulfide, chromatographic grade.

    3.2.2. Chloroform, reagent grade.

    3.2.3. Pentane, reagent grade, was used as an internal standard.

    3.2.4. Helium, hydrogen, and air; purified GC grade.

    3.2.5. Desorbing reagent, 1 µL of pentane per milliliter of CS2.
    3.3. Standard preparation.
    3.3.1. Standards are prepared by diluting pure chloroform with the desorbing reagent.

    3.3.2. Nine microliters of chloroform per 25 mL of desorbing reagent is equivalent to 10.9 ppm for a 10-L air sample desorbed with 1 mL of desorbing reagent.
    3.4. Sample preparation
    3.4.1. The front and back sections of each sample are transferred to separate 2-mL vials.

    3.4.2. Each section is desorbed with 1.0 mL of desorbing reagent.

    3.4.3. The vials are sealed immediately and allowed to desorb for 30 min with intermediate shaking.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 3.5.1. GC conditions

    helium (carrier gas) flow rate: 21.5 mL/min
    injector temperature: 200°C
    detector temperature: 260°C
    column temperature: 100°C
    detector: flame ionization
    hydrogen flow rate: 65 mL/min
    air flow rate: 240 mL/min
    injection size: 1 µL


    3.5.2. Chromatogram

    A typical chromatogram of chloroform under the GC conditions used in the analysis is shown in Figure 3.5.2.

    3.5.3. Peak areas are measured by an electronic integrator or other suitable means.

    3.5.4. An internal standard procedure is used. The integrator is calibrated to report results in ppm for a 10-L air sample after correction for desorption effieiency.
    3.6. Interferences (analytical)
    3.6.1. Any compound having the same general retention time of chloroform or the internal standard used is an interference. Possible interferences are listed on the sample data sheets. GC parameters should be chosen so these interferences will pose no problems.

    3.6.2. GC parameters may be changed to circumvent most interferences.

    3.6.3. Retention time on a single column is not considered proof of chemical identity. Samples should be confirmed by GC/MS or other suitable means.
    3.7. Calculations

    Usually the integrator is programmed to report results in ppm (corrected for desorption efficiency) for a 10-L air sample. The following calculation is used:

    ppm = (A)/(0.1)(B) where A = ppm on report
    B = air volume (L)


    3.8. Safety precautions


    3.8.1. All work using solvents (preparation of standards, desorption of samples, etc.) should be done in a hood.

    3.8.2. Avoid any skin contact with all of the solvents.

    3.8.3. Safety glasses should be worn throughout the procedure.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Backup Data
    4.1. Detection limit

    The standard used contained 0.0036 µL chloroform per milliliter of desorbing reagent or 5.34 µg/mL. Peak heights were used since the integrator was not reproducible on areas at this low concentration.


    Table 4.1.
    Detection Limit Data




    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    injection peak height (mm) statistics

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1 20
    2 19 = 20
    3 21 SD = 1.69
    4 20 CV = 0.08
    5 22
    6 22
    7 17
    8 19

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------




    Detection limit is 5.34 ng per injection (5.34 ng/µL × 1 µL). This is equivalent to 0.109 ppm for a 10-L air sample desorbed with 1.0 mL of desorbing reagent.

    4.2. Instrument response and analytical precision

    The analytical precision was determined from multiple analyses of three analytical standards whose respective concentrations were about 0.5, 1, and 2 times the target concentration. The area responses from these multiple analyses (and from which the data below were calculated) are plotted in Figure 4.2 and show a linear relationship with concentration.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Table 4.2.
    Instrument Response and Precision Data




    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    × target conc. 0.5× 1× 2×

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    µg/sample 274.597 583.908 1100.31
    found 283.940 564.595 1107.76
    292.710 603.008 1122.40
    256.623 607.400 1111.86
    285.008 593.089 1120.44
    287.557 598.172 1124.18
    283.314
    282.109


    280.7198 591.6953 1114.4917
    SD 10.9899 15.5793 9.4356
    CV 0.0391 0.0263 0.00847


    = 0.0029

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------




    4.3. Storage data

    Thirty-six samples were collected on charcoal tubes (SKC Lot 107) from a dynamic test atmosphere containing 10 ppm chloroform and 80% relative humidity. The recommended sampling conditions were used. Six samples were analyzed immediately. The remainder were divided into two equal groups, one stored at room temperature (21 to 26°C) and the other under refrigeration (-1 to 0°C). Three samples from each group were analyzed at 3 or 4 day intervals over 16 days.


    Table 4.3.
    Storage Tests




    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    storage time % recovery
    (days) (refrigerated) (ambient)

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    0 94.2 96.0 88.2 92.9 96.2 100.3
    3 85.0 93.1 90.2 76.1 80.6 83.3
    7 93.1 91.7 94.6 89.6 91.0 91.7
    10 91.1 91.5 94.0 91.7 95.9 91.8
    14 82.8 84.4 89.9 79.6 85.2 81.0
    16 84.0 85.1 84.0 73.1 77.9 78.8

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------




    The above data is plotted in Figures 4.3.1 and 4.3.2. The standard error of estimate for room temperature samples (Figure 4.3.1) is 8.5%. This includes a sampling error of ±5%.

    4.4. Desorption efficiency

    ReplyDelete
  8. Desorption Efficiency
    of Chloroform from Charcoal with Carbon Disulfide




    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    × target conc. 0.5× 1× 2×

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    mg/sample 0.249 0.237 0.534 0.475 1.068

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    desorption 98.3 96.1 97.4 91.5 102.2
    efficiency, 92.6 94.8 100.0 94.3 106.8
    % 94.2 97.6 98.3 95.7 103.9
    93.0 83.0 96.5 95.2 96.6
    95.5 96.2 100.4 95.6
    99.4 90.1 95.8 95.3
    90.5
    94.8
    90.8
    96.7


    95.5 93.0 98.1 94.2 97.3


    (for all data) = 95.9

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------






    Figure 3.5.2. Chromatogram of a standard of chloroform.









    Figure 4.2. Calibration curve of instrument response to chloroform.









    Figure 4.3.1. Ambient storage test for chloroform.









    Figure 4.3.2. Refrigerated storage test for chloroform.

    ReplyDelete
  9. good research
    on this post! Keep up all the hard work that you do for the missing.

    ReplyDelete