Conventional diatom testing using strong acid: Notable false-positive results caused by an underestimated contamination source (blind spot). (January 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kakizaki, Eiji; Shinkawa, Norihiro; Sonoda, Ai; Yukawa, Nobuhiro
• Is Part Of: Forensic science international. Volume 330(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-01
• Subjects: Drowning -- Diatom test -- False-positive -- Strong acid digestion -- Fuming nitric acid; Medical jurisprudence -- Periodicals; Chemistry, Forensic -- Periodicals; Forensic Medicine -- Periodicals; Médecine légale -- Périodiques; Chimie légale -- Périodiques; Gerechtelijke geneeskunde; Gerechtelijke chemie; Gerechtelijke psychiatrie; Chemistry, Forensic; Medical jurisprudence; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 614.1
• DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2021.111131
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0379-0738

Abstract

Abstract: Low rates of diatom positivity in the closed organs of drowning victims present challenges for diatom testing. High positivity rates in closed organs of non-drowning victims also raise an important issue. These contradictory findings were common in diatom testing studies undertaken during the 1960–80 s, but the reasons remained unclear. In the present study, we identified one of the most important factors associated with false-positive results in diatom testing using strong acid. One to 290 false-positive diatoms were found in reused Kjeldahl flasks that were thoroughly washed after the first diatom testing and kept free of tissue before the second testing. False-positive results occurred in 11 of 20 cases when more than approximately 10, 000 diatoms were present in digested tissue or water samples. Reused flasks were found to contain many common diatoms (<30 µm), including Cocconeis, Cymbella, Diatoma, Gomphonema, Navicula, and Nitzschia, in agreement with reports of diatoms identified in closed organs. Surprisingly, such false-positive results occurred even at the sixth diatom testing using the same flasks kept free of tissues in each analysis. In contrast, no diatoms were detected in any reagent or associated with other glassware. Thus, reuse of Kjeldahl flasks can readily cause false-positive results that cannot be completely prevented by cleaning the flasks using alkali detergents, as evidenced by detection of diatoms even after six tests. We assume that diatoms causing false-positive results are partially melted by heating and fixed onto the flask's inner surface glass, as the diatom frustule consists primarily of SiO2, similar to glass. Adherent diatoms are then released from the glass by re-heating at the next diatom testing. These results also suggest that the number of diatoms remaining in a flask can increase steadily as a result of repeated reuse for analysis of lung or water samples. In contrast, in analyses using only new flasks, only one or two diatoms were found in 4 of 20 kidney, 2 of 12 liver, and 2 of 8 blood samples from 20 drowning victims. It is difficult to determine whether such diatoms are actually carried via the blood circulation, as contamination with a few diatoms can occur during autopsy procedures and diatom testing. In conclusion, only new (unused) Kjeldahl flasks should be used for diatom testing with strong acid digestion. Moreover, these data suggest that the number and frequency of diatoms present in closed organs of drowning victims may be much lower than previously thought. Highlights: Repeated use of Kjeldahl flasks is a significant cause of false-positive results. Use of new (unused) flasks is required to help prevent false-positive results. Closed organs of drowning victims may contain far fewer diatoms than reported before. Navicula, Cocconeis, and Nitzschia, etc., are often detected in reused flasks. Lungs of non-drowning victims should also be examined using only new flasks.