In the case of extensively putrefied bodies, the analysis of entomological samples may support and complement the toxicological results obtained with other alternative matrices.

Entomotoxicological analysis is not part of routine toxicological analysis. This work aims to present two cases to illustrate the potential of entomological samples as complementary matrices to identify substances in cases of advanced putrefaction. (Case#1) A woman wasexhumed after 14 months to ascertain the exact cause of death. She died after six weeks of hospitalization because of intestinal ischemia followed by multiorgan failure. (Case#2) The corpse of a woman, known to have a psychiatric disorder, was discovered in her apartment. The state of decomposition of the body was consistent with a post-mortem period of several weeks (approximately 6 weeks). Toxicological investigations were performed in the biological and entomological samples of case#1 (hair, adipocere, brain, and pupae) and of case#2 (hair, bone, flies, and pupae) using liquid chromatography with high-resolution mass spectrometry and tandem mass spectrometry detection methods. In case#1, several drugs and metabolites were detected. In particular, the pupae analyses allowed the objectification of morphine administration, whereas morphine was only found in adipocere, but not in hair nor in brain. In case#2, the pupae analyses allowed the detection of three metabolites of quetiapine, and the flies analyses allowed the detection of valpromide, which was only detected in hair. In conclusion, the pupae and flies analyses in these two cases complemented the results obtained in the other alternative biological samples, which may guide hypotheses about the possible causes of death. Nevertheless, additional data and case reports would be of benefit to assess the value of entomotoxicology in routine forensic investigations.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.