Front. Toxicol. Frontiers in Toxicology Front. Toxicol. 2673-3080 Frontiers Media S.A. 1572324 10.3389/ftox.2025.1572324 Toxicology Original Research New psychoactive substances in roadway crash victims in California Gerona et al. 10.3389/ftox.2025.1572324 Gerona Roy 1 * Tomer Daniel 1 Nielsen Donovan 2 Sage Allyson C. 2 French Deborah 3 Tolles Juliana 4 Chenoweth James Alan 2 * 1 Department of OB/Gyn and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States 2 Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States 3 Department of Laboratory Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States 4 Department of Emergency Medicine, Harbor-UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, United States

Edited by: Marcelo Dutra Arbo, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Reviewed by: Kayla N. Ellefsen, Travis County Medical Examiner’s Office (TCMEO), United States

Caio Henrique Pinke Rodrigues, University of São Paulo, Brazil

*Correspondence: Roy Gerona, roy.gerona@ucsf.edu; James Alan Chenoweth, jachenoweth@ucdavis.edu
25 06 2025 2025 7 1572324 06 02 2025 09 05 2025 Copyright © 2025 Gerona, Tomer, Nielsen, Sage, French, Tolles and Chenoweth. 2025 Gerona, Tomer, Nielsen, Sage, French, Tolles and Chenoweth

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Background

Motor vehicle crashes (MVCs) are a major global health concern. While alcohol continues to be a significant contributor to MVCs, the role of illicit and prescription drugs has increased in the last 4 decades. Moreover, the proliferation of new psychoactive substances (NPS) in the United States since 2010 has reshaped recreational drug use. Despite this, its contribution to MVCs has not been systematically evaluated. In this study, we report the prevalence of NPS in roadway crash victims in California.

Methods

Serum samples from 1000 roadway crash victims were collected and analyzed using liquid chromatography-quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry (LC-QTOF/MS) against a comprehensive database of 1314 drugs, including 1008 NPS, and quantitative analysis was performed using isotope dilution. Alcohol was quantified in an autoanalyzer using an enzymatic method employing alcohol dehydrogenase.

Results

Eight NPS (detection frequency = 26) were confirmed and quantified in 17 cases. Like current nationwide NPS surveillance studies, bromazolam, para-fluorofentanyl, and mitragynine were most frequently detected. NPS were detected in polypharmacy use, with traditional recreational drugs such as fentanyl, methamphetamine, and delta-9 THC most frequently co-detected. The serum geometric means detected for bromazolam (5.41 ng/mL; range: 0.22–26.59), para-fluorofentanyl (0.45 ng/mL; range: 0.28–2.02) and mitragynine (7.02; range: 0.55–90.55) were lower than those reported for overdose and death cases.

Discussion

This study is the first to report quantitative levels of multiple NPS and multiple NPS classes in a large US roadway crash survey, with the high detection of CNS depressants and their co-occurrence with traditional recreational drugs highlighting the need for expanded NPS testing, roadside testing strategies, and guidelines for determining drug-induced impairment; the quantitative data may be valuable in establishing these guidelines.

impaired driving roadway crashes new psychoactive substances fentanyl analogs designer benzodiazepines mitragynine LC-QTOF/MS California California Office of Traffic Safety10.13039/100004809 section-at-acceptance Clinical Toxicology

香京julia种子在线播放

    1. <form id=HxFbUHhlv><nobr id=HxFbUHhlv></nobr></form>
      <address id=HxFbUHhlv><nobr id=HxFbUHhlv><nobr id=HxFbUHhlv></nobr></nobr></address>

      Introduction

      Motor vehicle crashes (MVCs) are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. The United Nations estimates that one person dies in a road crash every 24 s. That is roughly 1.35 million people each year (United Nations, 2024). While alcohol has long been established to be a significant contributor to MVCs, there has been interest in the role of illicit and prescription drugs in the last 4 decades. While there are several ways to classify drugs, that is, chemical makeup, origins, and legal status among others, for the purposes of this paper, drugs will be classified within general categories based on what is most relevant to the pharmacologic mechanisms that facilitate impaired driving. Psychoactive drugs including hallucinogens (cannabis, LSD), central nervous system (CNS) stimulants (methamphetamine, cocaine), CNS depressants (opioids, benzodiazepines), dissociative anesthetics (phencyclidine, ketamine), and sedating prescription drugs (some antihistamines, antipsychotics and antidepressants) can contribute to impaired driving which may lead to MVCs.

      Drugs can impair driving through a combination of different mechanisms. These include impairing cognitive processes that are critical in driving, such as focus, attention, and decision-making. Psychoactive drugs can also compromise psychomotor skills and coordination, which are essential in observing correct lane position and speed while driving. Some drugs can lower inhibition, which can lead to aggressive driving, speeding, and a loosened attitude toward following traffic rules. Other drugs and medications can cause sedation and fatigue that may compromise alertness and delay reaction time to urgent and critical driving situations (Riedel et al., 1998).

      Surveys and studies on the involvement of drugs in impaired driving and MVCs started in the 1980s (Williams et al., 1985). Two surveys conducted on car drivers killed in traffic crashes in Los Angeles in 1985–86 and 1987–88 detected drugs in 30% (total sample size (N) = 102) and 12% (N = 492) of the drivers, respectively (Budd et al., 1989). Cannabis and cocaine were the most detected drugs and in at least 50% of the cases that tested positive for drugs, alcohol was co-detected. Nationwide, a review of data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, a survey of MVCs resulting in at least one fatality on US public roads, showed a steady increase in drug prevalence in MVCs from 18.1% in 1999 (N = 6,686) to 29.1% in 2010 (N = 7,032). Cocaine and cannabis were the most reported drugs (Rudisill et al., 2014; Brady and Li, 2014). However, prescription drugs as a broad category were more prevalent than cannabis, cocaine, methamphetamine and various Schedule I drugs. Among the prescription drugs, the detection of oxycodone, hydrocodone, and alprazolam registered significant and steady increases starting in 1999 (Rudisill et al., 2014). More than 50% of drivers who tested positive for cannabis (N = 998) or cocaine (N = 145) were also using alcohol at the time of the MVC (Wilson et al., 2014). Polypharmacy in the cases also increased from 4.5% in 1999 (N = 6,686) to 7.3% in 2010 (N = 7,032) (Brady and Li, 2014). Additionally, a recent study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported the presence of potentially impairing drugs (both illicit and pharmaceutical) in 54.4% of injured drivers (N = 6,382) and 68.8% of driver fatalities (N = 897, Thomas et al., 2022).

      The rapid rise of new psychoactive substances (NPS, aka designer drugs) in the recreational drug market that started in 2010 complicated drug testing in clinical and forensic laboratories. The rapid molecular evolution of the composition of the drug products containing NPS required a paradigm shift in drug testing (Gerona and French, 2022). Most are missed in urine drug screens and the traditional targeted method used in drug confirmation is unable to cope with the rapid introduction of new NPS. Thus, NPS are often missed unless non-targeted analysis facilitated by high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) is incorporated into a laboratory’s drug testing workflow. Unfortunately, very few laboratories are able to implement HRMS testing due to the high cost of the platform and the specialized expertise it requires that is not commonly available (Gerona and French, 2022; Wu et al., 2012). Thus, NPS are underreported in the context of impaired driving and MVCs.

      The recognition of NPS as an important component of drug testing in impaired driving and MVCs was reflected in the inclusion of fentanyl analogs as Tier 2 drugs in the updated 2017 recommendations for toxicological investigation of driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) and MVC cases (Logan et al., 2018). Inclusion of other NPS classes such as synthetic cannabinoids, synthetic cathinones and designer benzodiazepines among others followed in the 2021 recommendations (D’Orazio et al., 2021). Tier 2 drugs are those that are less frequently encountered or require more advanced instrumentation like HRMS (Logan et al., 2013). Despite this, very few surveys on DUID and MVC cases in the United States have reported the detection of NPS. A handful of reports have been published in Europe. NPS, primarily synthetic cathinones, were detected in 33 out of 391 oral fluid samples (8.4%) collected from suspected DUID cases in France and Belgium in 2016 (Richeval et al., 2019). In another study, stimulant NPS (3%–8%) and synthetic cannabinoids (20%–22%) were detected in DUID case samples positive for drugs collected between 2016 and 2018 in Hungary (Institóris et al., 2022).

      In this study, we report the NPS detected in samples collected from roadway crash victims in northern and southern California in 2024. A roadway crash is defined as a crash involving a motor vehicle, bicycle, mini-mobility device, or pedestrian struck by a motor vehicle on a public roadway. A motor vehicle crash is a subtype of roadway crash that is limited to mechanically or electrically powered devices not operated on rails, i.e., motor vehicles. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first formal report of multiple NPS and NPS classes quantified in a large survey of roadway crash cases in the United States.

      Materials and methods Eligibility and enrollment

      All patients 18 and older presenting to two urban trauma centers in California within 6 h of a roadway crash who were undergoing a blood draw as part of their routine Emergency Department (ED) care were eligible for inclusion. Patients were excluded if they were not undergoing a blood draw as part of their ED care, if a blood draw was performed without collecting blood for drug and alcohol testing, if the initial blood draw occurred more than 6 h from the time of the crash, or if the patient was in police custody at the time of presentation or was taken into custody during the first 24 h of hospitalization. Enrollment began on 2 January 2024 and is ongoing. This study was approved by the local institutional review boards (IRB number 2056749) with a full waiver of consent and received a certificate of confidentiality from the National Institutes of Health.

      Sample collection, preparation, and storage

      Five mL of blood was collected in both a red top tube and a lithium heparin tube by the bedside nurse during a routine lab draw. Red top tubes were then centrifuged at 1300 relative centrifugal force (RCF) for 10 min and serum was aliquoted into cryotubes which were then refrigerated at 1°C–6°C until shipped to the UCSF Clinical Toxicology and Environmental Biomonitoring Laboratory. Lithium heparin tubes were centrifuged and frozen at −20°C until shipped. Shipments occurred once per week. Alcohol analysis was performed at UCSF Health Clinical Laboratories.

      Sample analysis Drugs

      We analyzed drugs in serum samples using a modification of our published method (Lung et al., 2016). Briefly, a mixture of 14 internal standards was added to each serum sample for a final concentration of 25 ng/mL. The sample (0.25 mL) was prepared for analysis by protein precipitation using 0.75 mL 3:1 acetonitrile: methanol. The extract obtained was reconstituted in 0.25 mL 10% acetonitrile prior to injection into an Agilent liquid chromatograph (LC) 1260 attached to an Agilent quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometer (QTOF/MS) 6550. Analytes were separated by gradient elution chromatography using a reverse phase Agilent Poroshell 120 EC-C18 column (2.1 × 100 mm, 2.7 µm). Water with 0.05% formic acid and 0.1% 5 M ammonium formate was used as mobile phase A (MPA) and acetonitrile with 0.05% formic acid as mobile phase B (MPB). The gradient used for analyte separation started with 5% MPB from 0 to 1.5 min, 30% MPB from 1.5 to 4.5 min, 70% MPB from 4.5 to 7.5 min, and 100% MPB from 7.5 to 10 min at a flow rate of 0.5 mL/min. An injection volume of 2.5 µL was used. The column compartment temperature was set to 50°C, and the autosampler temperature was set to 4°C.

      Mass spectrometry was performed using the TOF/MS mode in one run followed by a QTOF/MS run using auto MS/MS data acquisition. An electrospray ionization source in the positive and negative modes was used to ionize analytes in the extract. The QTOF/MS was run under the following conditions: gas temperature at 225°C; sheath gas temperature at 350°C; drying gas flow at 14L/min; sheath gas flow at 11L/min; nebulizer pressure at 14 psi; voltage cap at 3000 V (positive mode) or −2,500 V (negative mode); and, nozzle voltage at 500 V (positive mode) or −1,500 V (negative mode). Data acquisition was run at 2 GHz in extended dynamic range mode. A TOF-MS scan across the range of 75–1000 m/z was collected at high resolution. Using the Auto MS/MS mode (information-dependent acquisition), a product ion scan (MS/MS) of the three most abundant peaks at high resolution was triggered each time a precursor ion with an intensity of ≥500 counts per second was generated in the TOF-MS scan; active exclusion of previously selected peak was held for 0.5 min. The MS/MS scan range used was 50–1000 m/z.

      Quantitative analysis of confirmed NPS was accomplished using isotope dilution. Each sample was run along with a 12-point calibration curve using the LC-TOF/MS analysis method described above. A mixture of 14 internal standards (11-nor-9-carboxy-delta-9-THC-d3, amiodarone-d4, atropine-d3, cocaine-d3, delta-9-THC-d9, doxepin-d3, fentanyl-d5, hydromorphone-d6, JWH-015-d7, loratadine-d4, MDMA-d5, morphine-d6, oxycodone-d6, paroxetine-d6) with retention times that bracket the retention times of all the drugs in the laboratory’s comprehensive drug database was used.

      Alcohol

      Alcohol was quantified in plasma samples using an enzymatic method employing alcohol dehydrogenase that converts any alcohol in the sample to acetaldehyde (Abbott Diagnostics). The enzymatic reaction is monitored spectrophotometrically at 340 nm. If the ethanol concentration in the sample is < 0.01 g/dL it is reported as negative. If the concentration is ≥0.01 g/dL, the quantitative concentration is reported.

      Data analysis

      Drug screening was performed on the total ion chromatogram (TIC) obtained from LC-TOF/MS analysis using the Agilent MassHunter Qualitative Analysis software and a comprehensive database consisting of 1314 drugs, of which 1008 are NPS. This consists of alkylamines (3), aminoindanes (6), amphetamines (29), anabolic steroid (1), arylcyclohexylamines (17), designer benzodiazepines (38), lysergamides (2), new synthetic opioids (296), phenethylamines (28), plant-derived opioids (2), piperazines (9), piperidines (9), synthetic cannabinoids (481), synthetic cathinones (67), and tryptamines (20). The database also includes traditional recreational drugs (54), prescription and over-the-counter drugs (215), precursors (5), additives (5) and impurities (1), dietary supplement stimulants (23), other dietary supplement ingredients (1), and nicotine and its metabolites (2).

      To screen for presumptive matches, the following criteria were used: mass error within 10 parts per million (ppm), retention time match within 0.15 min, and a target score ≥70 (an indicator of mass spectral isotopic abundance and spacing or isotopic pattern matches). For confirmation of presumptive positive matches, data from the LC-QTOF/MS run was analyzed. A spectral library match score ≥70 (indicator of fragment ion data match) was imposed for confirmation.

      The quantitative levels of confirmed NPS were measured using the Agilent MassHunter Quantitative Analysis software. The isotopologue with the closest retention time to the analyte of interest was used as internal standard.

      Results

      While sample collection is still ongoing, the first 1000 cases included in our present analysis were collected between 2 January 2024 and 25 July 2024. These roadway crash victims originated from Los Angeles and Sacramento, California. NPS was confirmed in 17 cases (1.7%). Ten of the cases were from Sacramento while the remaining seven were from Los Angeles.

      The average age of roadway crash victims with confirmed NPS was 34 (range:18–66; median: 38). Of the 17 cases, 11 were males. Seven were passengers, five were drivers, three were bicyclists with two being on electric bikes, one pedestrian struck by a motor vehicle, and one in mini-mobility device. The types of crashes involved in the cases include single vehicle (8), multi-vehicle (5), auto vs. bicycle (2), auto vs. pedestrian (1), and bicyclist (1) (Table 1).

      Characteristics of seventeen NPS-positive roadway crash cases including specific drugs detected. Source locations were not included to protect patient confidentiality*.

      Age/Gender/Type of crash NPS Conc’n (ng/mL) Traditional recreational drug (ng/ML) Precursor, additive, impurity Over-the-counter or prescription drug Ethanol (g/dL)
      33 y/o MaleDriverSingle Vehicle Crash para-Fluorofentanyl 0.28 Negative 4-ANPPLidocaine Acetaminophen Negative
      49 y/o MalePassengerMulti-vehicle crash 7-HydroxymitragynineMitragynine 8.9290.55 Hydrocodone (62) Negative Duloxetine Negative
      27 y/o FemaleDriverMini-Mobility Device BromazolamN-methyl norfentanyl 26.590.83 Beta-hydroxy fentanyl (2.4)Fentanyl (28.1)Norfentanyl (35.4) 4-ANPP Acetaminophen Negative
      33 y/o FemaleBicyclistAuto vs. Bicycle Acetyl fentanyl para-FluorofentanylProtonitazene 0.550.280.55 Beta-hydroxy fentanyl (1.6)Norfentanyl (9.9)Methamphetamine (94.4) 4-ANPPLidocaineN,N-Dimethylamphetamine Acetaminophen Negative
      21 y/o MalePassengerSingle Vehicle Crash Etizolam 1.21 Delta-9-THC (2.7) Negative AlprazolamDiphenhydraminePromethazine Negative
      18 y/o FemalePassengerSingle Vehicle Crash Bromazolam 10.62 Benzoylecgonine (60.8)Cocaine (2.7) Negative Negative Negative
      32 y/o MalePassengerSingle Vehicle Crash Bromazolam para-FluorofentanylN-methylnorfentanyl 0.220.280.55 Benzoylecgonine (55)Beta-hydroxy fentanyl (5.5)Norfentanyl (12)Methamphetamine (127) 4-ANPP 7-aminoclonazepamClonazepamAlprazolam Negative
      42 y/o MaleDriverSingle Vehicle Crash para-Fluorofentanyl 2.02 Benzoylecgonine (3.3)Cocaine (0.5)Fentanyl (3.7)Norfentanyl (0.3)Methamphetamine (91.5) 4-ANPP Negative Negative
      23 y/o MaleDriverSingle Vehicle Crash Mitragynine 0.55 Negative Negative Negative Negative
      23 y/o MaleDriverMulti-Vehicle Crash Alpha-hydroxy bromazolamBromazolam 10.58 1.08 4-Hydroxymethamphetamine (0.1)Methamphetamine (300)Beta-hydroxy fentanyl (2.9)Norfentanyl (2.8)Delta-9-THC (8.6) 4-ANPPQuinine Acetaminophen Negative
      22 y/o FemalePassengerSingle Vehicle Crash Bromazolam 17.01 Beta-hydroxy fentanyl (0.5)Fentanyl (3.2)Norfentanyl (2.8)Methamphetamine (0.6) Quinine Negative Negative
      54 y/o MaleBicyclistE-Bike Crash Xylazine 4.10 11-nor-9-carboxy-delta-9-THC (70)Delta-9-THC (25.6) Negative 1-(3-Chlorophenyl) piperazineTrazodoneAcetaminophenCarbamazepineDesmethyldoxepinDoxepinHaloperidolOxcarbazepineQuetiapine 0.35
      34 y/o MaleDriverSingle Vehicle Crash 7-HydroxymitragynineMitragynine 33.0988.41 Fentanyl (68.9)Norfentanyl (1.6) 4-ANPP Negative Negative
      66 y/o FemalePassengerMulti-Vehicle Crash Mitragynine 0.55 Hydrocodone (3.6) Negative 1-(3-Chlorophenyl) piperazineTrazodone Negative
      33 y/o MalePedestrianStruck by Vehicle Bromazolam 13.53 Beta-hydroxy fentanyl (0.3)Fentanyl (3.6)Norfentanyl (3.4)Methamphetamine (18.6) 4-ANPP Negative Negative
      29 y/o FemaleBicyclistE-Bike vs. Vehicle para-FluorofentanylAcetyl fentanyl 0.280.55 Beta-hydroxy fentanyl (7.8)Fentanyl (47.1)Norfentanyl (27.5)4-Hydroxymethamphetamine (1.1)Methamphetamine (504)Amphetamine (76.2) 4-ANPPLidocaine Acetaminophen Negative
      35 y/o MalePassengerMulti-Vehicle Crash Bromazolam 8.87 11-nor-9-carboxy-delta-9-THC (61.5)Delta-9-THC (1.5)Methamphetamine (15.6) Negative Negative Negative

      *The limits of quantification (LOQ) for the analytes (in ng/mL) are as follows: 4-Hydroxymethamphetamine (0.1); 7-Hydroxymitragynine (0.39); 11-nor-9-carboxy-delta-9-THC (60); Acetyl fentanyl (0.39); Alpha-hydroxy bromazolam (0.2); Amphetamine (60); Benzoylecgonine (0.39); Beta-hydroxy fentanyl (0.2); Bromazolam (0.2); Cocaine (0.1); Delta-9-THC (1); Etizolam (0.78); Fentanyl (0.78); Hydrocodone (1.6); Methamphetamine (0.39); Mitragynine (0.39); N-Methyl norfentanyl (0.2); Norfentanyl (0.2); para-Fluorofentanyl (0.2); Protonitazene (0.39); Xylazine (1.56). Details of the analytical method used to quantify the analytes are beyond the scope of this paper but they can be requested from the corresponding author.

      Of the 1000 cases, 290 were positive for at least one traditional recreational drug (TRD) or NPS (29%). Of the 288 that were positive for TRDs, 15 have NPS (4.9%). There were eight unique NPS detected with an overall detection frequency of 26. Only CNS depressants were detected, including designer benzodiazepines, new synthetic opioids, and the plant-derived opioid, mitragynine. Bromazolam (detection frequency, DF = 7) was the most detected, followed by para-fluorofentanyl (DF = 4) and mitragynine (DF = 3) (Table 1). The five other NPS detected includes acetyl fentanyl, N-methyl norfentanyl, protonitazene, etizolam and xylazine. The quantitative levels of these NPS measured in serum samples are given in Table 1. In one case three NPS were detected, while in six, two NPS were detected.

      All but one case also had one or more traditional recreational drugs (TRD), of which fentanyl (DF = 9), methamphetamine (DF = 9), and delta-9-THC (DF = 4) were the most detected. Cocaine was detected in 2 cases while the inactive cocaine metabolite, benzoylecgonine, was detected in 3 cases (Table 1). In nine cases the precursor for fentanyl, ANPP, was detected. Two adulterants, quinine and lidocaine, were detected in two and three cases, respectively. The impurity obtained during methamphetamine synthesis, N,N-dimethylamphetamine, was detected in one case.

      Sixteen of the seventeen cases tested negative for ethanol. The sole sample that tested positive for alcohol had a concentration of 0.35 g/dL (Table 1).

      Discussion

      The analysis of the first 1000 cases indicates that NPS in roadway crashes is a cause for concern in the United States. Eight NPS with a detection frequency of 26 were confirmed in 17 cases. Importantly, the NPS detected at the highest frequencies (bromazolam, para-fluorofentanyl, and mitragynine) are all categorized as CNS depressants. These drugs reduce the activity of the brain, resulting in sedation, drowsiness, and impaired cognitive and motor functions (Hetland and Carr, 2014). Previous studies have found an association between heightened crash risk and the type of drug used while driving with depressants resulting in the highest risk (Li et al., 2013). Benzodiazepine users have been found to be up to 80 percent more likely to be involved in a motor vehicle crash compared to non-users (Dassanayake et al., 2011). Bromazolam, the most frequently detected NPS in this study, is a designer benzodiazepine. This NPS is the brominated counterpart to the chlorinated drug alprazolam, most popularly prescribed as Xanax (Zawilska and Wojcieszak, 2019). In vitro studies predicted bromazolam to be a non-subtype selective agonist at the benzodiazepine site of GABA-A receptor with binding affinities of 2.81 nM at the α1 subtype, 0.69 nM at α2, and 0.62 nM at α5 (Clayton et al., 2015). Bromazolam was initially reported in a retrospective analysis of DUID cases submitted by law enforcement agents that tested positive for designer benzodiazepines between 2017 and 2021. Bromazolam was one of eight benzodiazepines included in 1145 designer benzodiazepine detections in 805 blood samples. However, it only accounted for five detections (0.4%) (Papsun et al., 2023). The relatively high detection of bromazolam in our cohort is consistent with recent research reporting 98 out of 52,585 (0.19%) impaired driving cases from 2021 to 2023 in which the driver tested positive for bromazolam via LC-TOF/MS and/or immunoassay screenings (Bierly et al., 2024). Our higher detection frequency of 0.7% is consistent with the rise of bromazolam as the most detected NPS in the US Drug Enforcement Administration Toxicology Testing Program (DEA TOX) that started in 2023. In almost all of these cases, bromazolam was detected along with fentanyl suggesting either their intentional co-ingestion or the co-presence of fentanyl and bromazolan in drug products, consistent with the increasing prevalence of “benzo dope”.

      The second most detected NPS in our study, para-fluorofentanyl (pFF), was the most frequently detected NPS in the United States from 2021 until it was overtaken by bromazolam in 2023 (Trecki et al., 2022; U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Diversion Control Division, 2023b). This NPS was sold briefly on the US black market in the early 1980s, which served as the impetus for the introduction of the Federal Analog Act (Henderson, 1988). It made its comeback in 2020 when it was frequently detected as a fentanyl adulterant. pFF has been detected previously in a similar study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) between 2021 and 2022; pFF was detected 13 times over 2 years in 7,279 roadway users (0.18%) across seven different states (Thomas et al., 2022). One explanation for our higher detection frequency (0.4%) of pFF may be that some laboratories that performed the analyses in the NHTSA study do not have the ability to detect pFF.

      Mitragynine, the primary psychoactive ingredient of Kratom, was the third most detected NPS in our study. Although Kratom was first brought to the United States in the 1980s, its recreational use only gained traction in 2010 (Post et al., 2019). Kratom has a stimulant effect in low doses, opioid-like effects in moderate to high doses, and sedative effects in very high doses (Prozialeck et al., 2012). Mitragynine was first reported in a DUI case in the United States in 2018 (Wright, 2018). The detection frequency in our cases (0.3%) is consistent with a previous retrospective study on the detection of mitragynine in DUID cases in Orange County, California between 2017 and 2019. In the 25,398 cases evaluated, mitragynine was detected in 60 cases (0.24%) (Kedzierski and Mata, 2023). The other NPS detected in our cases- N-methyl norfentanyl, acetyl fentanyl, protonitazene, etizolam, xylazine-have also been reported in the United States in the last 5 years (United States Drug Enforcement Administration, 2020; U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Diversion Control Division, 2023a).

      Five other NPS (3 new synthetic opioids, 1 designer benzodiazepine, xylazine) were quantified in six cases. As a class, opioids were detected the most (16, 62%) in the entire cohort (Figure 1); notably, new synthetic opioids were detected almost twice as much as plant-derived opioids. When the position in the crash was considered, opioids overwhelmingly predominated (11 of 15, 73%) among drivers and bicyclists. Interestingly, designer benzodiazepines (6, 55%) and opioids (5, 45%) were almost equally detected in passengers and pedestrians. Of note, designer benzodiazepines were detected twice as much in passengers compared to drivers. However, with the limited number of NPS-positive cases detected so far in our study, it is hard to ascribe any meaning yet to these observations. The study is ongoing and with more NPS cases accumulating in our second year, a more representative sampling would soon be available.

      Detection frequency of NPS parent compound and metabolite by drug class and position in crash.

      While alcohol-impaired driving continues to have the most detrimental impact on traffic safety (Thomas et al., 2022), polysubstance abuse-impaired driving is a significant contributor. Under the DRUID project, Hels and colleagues found that the odds of being seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision are 28 times higher for drivers who test positive for alcohol with other drugs and 8 times higher for drivers who tested positive for more than one nonalcohol drug compared to those who tested negative. These numbers are even higher (31x and18x, respectively) for fatally injured drivers (Hels et al., 2011).

      The percentage of drivers using multiple drugs has increased from 32.6 percent in 1993 to 45.85 percent in 2010 (Wilson et al., 2014). There are several factors to account for this, including but not limited to an increase in prescription drug use (Kantor et al., 2015) and an increase in NPS supply and use in the United States. This is consistent with our data, as all but one case of NPS detection involved polypharmacy. Fifteen of the 17 cases have at least one traditional recreational drug with fentanyl detected in 9 cases. NPS are commonly co-detected with TRDs due to co-existence in drug preparations and/or because users combine different pharmacological classes of drugs they abuse.

      The current fentanyl epidemic in the United States started in 2015, and since then, fentanyl has been detected as an adulterant in common drugs of abuse, initially in heroin and later in stimulants like methamphetamine and cocaine. Seven of the fentanyl detections have either methamphetamine or cocaine. Additionally, NPS are also added to fentanyl drug preparations. The majority of the bromazolam and pFF detections in NPS surveillance in the United States are co-detected with fentanyl (U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Diversion Control Division, 2023a; U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Diversion Control Division, 2023b; U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Diversion Control Division, 2023c; U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Diversion Control Division, 2023d; U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Diversion Control Division, 2023e). This is reflected in our cases; fentanyl was detected in five of seven and four of five cases of bromazolam and pFF cases, respectively. The combination of these depressants undoubtedly exacerbates the impact of these drugs on driving. In the two cases in which bromazolam was found without fentanyl, methamphetamine was detected. Although the combination of drugs with opposing pharmacological effects may be antagonistic in some cases, both stimulants and depressants, on their own, impact driving. More importantly, it is difficult to determine whether the effects each class has on driving are mitigated by their combination. And, even if this is the case, obtaining the specific proportion required for one drug to antagonize another may be challenging to precisely achieve and may vary from one person to another.

      Furthermore, our research provides a unique insight into not just the identification of NPS detected in roadway crashes, but their quantitative levels too. Previous studies primarily report qualitative data on NPS; in a few studies, quantitative data for a specific NPS like bromazolam was presented (Bierly et al., 2024; Papsun et al., 2023). Table 1 shows the quantitative levels of all eight NPS found in roadway crash victims in our study. While there is lack of consensus regarding the correlation between drug concentration and degree of impairment due to factors such as tolerance or drug-drug interactions (Reisfield et al., 2012), there are proposed cut-offs for psychoactive substances that have clear concentration dependent cognitive impairment (Blandino et al., 2022). Quantitative drug levels may be able to provide a window into the potential degree of intoxication for those involved in the crashes. This can, in turn, provide a clue to the degree of impairment that can be ascribed to drug levels detected. A cutoff blood alcohol level has been established to objectively determine whether a motorist may be experiencing alcohol-induced driving impairment. The same has not yet been established for any other drugs including common drugs of abuse, e.g., cannabis. Hence, the NPS levels reported in our study can provide initial data that may be useful in establishing guidelines for determining NPS-induced drug impairment. The geometric mean of serum levels that we measured for bromazolam was 5.41 ng/mL (range: 0.22–26.59 ng/mL). These levels are lower than those reported in overdose cases (12.34 ng/mL) and death cases (25.39 ng/mL) by the DEA TOX program in 2023. This is expected as overdose patients are incapacitated, making driving highly unlikely. However, the wide range of values observed in roadway crash victims likely reflects differences in drug tolerance. For pFF, the geometric mean observed in roadway crash victims was 0.45 ng/mL (range: 0.28–2.02), whereas in DEA TOX it was 5.26 ng/mL (U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Diversion Control Division, 2023b; U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Diversion Control Division, 2023c; U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Diversion Control Division, 2023d; U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Diversion Control Division, 2023e). No comparison to overdose cases can be made as almost all pFF cases in DEA TOX were deaths. This and the lower concentrations observed for pFF associated with roadway crashes and deaths may suggest its stronger potency in these cases. Alternatively, because almost all pFF cases also involve fentanyl, this may be suggestive of the synergistic effects of the two drugs.

      Our work is the first to conduct a comprehensive targeted analysis of more than 1000 NPS, in combination with suspect and non-targeted screening in roadway collisions across a large population. While there have been reviews across several countries in Europe such as Spain, Germany, France, and Belgium (Fels et al., 2020; Richeval et al., 2019; Soria, 2018; Wille et al., 2018), in the United States there only exist case reports for NPS in individual drivers (Fassette and Martinez, 2016; Lemos, 2014; Rajotte et al., 2017), larger studies (n = 9,569) with limited NPS testing (only synthetic cannabinoids and cathinones) and detection frequency (n = 2, <0.1% detection frequency) (NTSB, 2022), and retrospective analyses for specific NPS like bromazolam and mitragynine in large cohorts (Bierly et al., 2024; Kedzierski and Mata, 2023; Papsun et al., 2023). Counterintuitively, the United States also experiences some of the highest rates of NPS use. The reasons for why this may be the case center around regulation and policy frameworks. The United States lacks an organized federal body akin to the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), which is focused on tracking the prevalence of NPS in public health that also looks specifically at road safety. This allows for a more coordinated and unified effort in which laws and testing protocols around NPS are harmonized, whereas in the United States federal and state jurisdiction disputes can complicate the implementation of consistent policies. Furthermore, there are specific policies, such as the EU Drug Driving Directive (2015/413) which targets drug-impaired driving, including NPS. There is also a larger extent and wider range of testing infrastructure in Europe including monitoring tools such as syringe residue and wastewater analysis, drug product and biological sample testing through the European Drug Emergencies Network, drug checking services, and expanded surveys (Wood and Dargan, 2020). In the United States, attempts at improving regulation through the Controlled Substances Analogue Enforcement Act (1986) as well as the Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act (2012) largely failed as they were devised in a manner that leaves the classification of NPS open to various justifications in structural and functional arguments, complicating legal and testing systems. A lack of consistent legislation that accurately and quickly determines which substances are deemed NPS contributes to this problem in the United States.

      Although our analysis is comprehensive, it is not without limitations. First, samples were collected from cases limited to two geographic locations- Los Angeles and Sacramento. Although these two cities may represent a large and medium-sized city in California, they do not represent the rest of the cities and towns in the state. To a greater extent, they do not represent the rest of the United States. There are known geographic differences in drug use patterns so our findings may not accurately be used to extrapolate what may be true for the rest of the country. Furthermore, our cohort does not include subjects from other at-risk populations, such as drivers or pedestrians who may not have been involved in roadway crashes that required an Emergency Department visit. Certain exclusionary criteria, such as the patient having a warrant for their arrest also limit data extrapolation. Additionally, the study was conducted over 7 months, from January to July 2024. The general findings of our larger ongoing study demonstrated differential detection frequency among drugs between months. The detection frequency of most drugs, for example, was trending up towards the summer months (unpublished data). It is difficult to predict the impact that collection from August to December would have had on our data. This time constraint also makes it difficult to establish trends in NPS use over longer periods of time. Longitudinal studies would provide a more comprehensive understanding of NPS use and its evolving impact on impaired driving. Finally, like any other comprehensive LC-QTOF/MS method, our method may not have the best sensitivity for a few NPS. Comprehensive methods are designed to optimize detection and confirmation of as many drugs (NPS) as possible. However, the wide range of structural differences and polarities among various classes of NPS make it impossible to have optimum sensitivity for all NPS classes. Although our method is good at detecting more than 98% of our target analytes at sensitivities appropriate for serum, it does not have good sensitivity to very small, strongly polar (e.g., GHB analogs) and large highly hydrophobic (e.g., delta-9-THC derivatives) compounds, so if the levels of these NPS are low in biological samples, we likely missed their detection. Moreover, substances of which there is no known reference standard or are very uncommon might be excluded which may further limit the scope of the study.

      In summary, although the number of cases where we found NPS in our cohort is limited, our findings provide more evidence of the ongoing danger that NPS may pose to road safety and highlight the need for policy change aimed at expanding NPS testing infrastructure, specifically in cases of impaired driving. Future research should continue to look at NPS in roadway collisions, specifically in drivers, as this is the cohort most responsible for injury and death in crashes. If possible, it would also be beneficial to develop a dynamic roadside testing strategy that adapts to the highly detected and impairing NPS reported in nationwide drug surveillance close to, if not in, real-time.

      Data availability statement

      The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries about the results presented can be directed to the corresponding authors.

      Ethics statement

      The studies involving humans were approved by UC Davis Institutional Review Board. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

      Author contributions

      RG: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. DT: Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. DN: Data curation, Investigation, Writing – review and editing. AS: Investigation, Project administration, Writing – review and editing. DF: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Writing – review and editing. JT: Investigation, Project administration, Writing – review and editing. JC: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review and editing.

      Funding

      The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This study was supported by the California Office of Traffic Safety grant number DI24026 (PI: James Alan Chenoweth). Analysis of the NPS in the 17 cases was done through the support of DEA TOX funded through the contract number DOJ 15DDHO24A000000 13 (PI, Roy Gerona).

      The authors would like to thank all of the staff who have worked diligently on this project. UC Davis–Isabel Anderson, Abhijeet Gorhe, Addy Hammudi, Eric Hansen, Logen Howze, Karina Klein, Nicholeth Santiago, Nam Tran, and Monica Tsui. Lundquist Institute–Khadije Ahmad, Marziyeh Bagheri, Nichole Faucher, Ahmed Ghanem, Sajad Hamal, Elizabeth Hernandez, Jeremy Stark, Dyonne Tetangco, and Santos Vazquez. California Office of Traffic Safety–David Doucette (former deputy director), Moriah Martinez, Nicole Osuna, and Barbara Rooney (former director).

      Conflict of interest

      The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

      The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.

      Generative AI statement

      The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

      Publisher’s note

      All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

      References Bierly J. J. Papsun D. M. Logan B. K. (2024). Bromazolam in impaired driving investigations. J. Anal. Toxicol. 48 (9), 653658. PMID: 39191669. 10.1093/jat/bkae074 Blandino A. Cotroneo R. Tambuzzi S. Di Candia D. Genovese U. Zoja R. (2022). Driving under the influence of drugs: correlation between blood psychoactive drug concentrations and cognitive impairment. A narrative review taking into account forensic issues. Forensic Sci. Int. Synerg 4, 100224. Published 2022 Mar 21. 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2022.100224 Brady J. E. Li G. (2014). Trends in alcohol and other drugs detected in fatally injured drivers in the United States, 1999-2010. Am. J. Epidemiol. 179 (6), 692699. Epub 2014 Jan 29. PMID: 24477748; PMCID: PMC3939850. 10.1093/aje/kwt327 Budd R. D. Muto J. J. Wong J. K. (1989). Drugs of abuse found in fatally injured drivers in Los Angeles County. Drug Alcohol Depend. 23 (2), 153158. PMID: 2702925. 10.1016/0376-8716(89)90021-5 Clayton T. Poe M. M. Rallapalli S. Biawat P. Savić M. M. Rowlett J. K. (2015). A review of the updated pharmacophore for the Alpha 5 GABA(A) benzodiazepine receptor model. Int. J. Med. Chem. 2015, 430248. Epub 2015 Nov 10. PMID: 26682068; PMCID: PMC4657098. 10.1155/2015/430248 Dassanayake T. Michie P. Carter G. Jones A. (2011). Effects of benzodiazepines, antidepressants and opioids on driving: a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological and experimental evidence. Drug Saf. 34 (2), 125156. PMID: 21247221. 10.2165/11539050-000000000-00000 D’Orazio A. L. Mohr A. L. A. Chan-Hosokawa A. Harper C. Huestis M. A. Limoges J. F. (2017). Recommendations for toxicological investigation of drug-impaired driving and motor vehicle fatalities-2021 update. J. Anal. Toxicol. 45 (6), 529536. 10.1093/jat/bkab064 Fassette T. Martinez A. (2016). An impaired driver found to be under the influence of methoxetamine. J. Anal. Toxicol. 40 (8), 700702. Epub 2016 Jun 23. PMID: 27339480. 10.1093/jat/bkw054 Fels H. Herzog J. Skopp G. Holzer A. Paul L. D. Graw M. (2020). Retrospective analysis of new psychoactive substances in blood samples of German drivers suspected of driving under the influence of drugs. Drug Test. Anal. 12 (10), 14701476. Epub 2020 Jul 23. PMID: 32652866. 10.1002/dta.2897 Gerona R. R. French D. (2022). Drug testing in the era of new psychoactive substances. Adv. Clin. Chem. 111, 217263. Epub 2022 Sep 23. PMID: 36427911. 10.1016/bs.acc.2022.08.001 Hels T. Bernhoft I. M. Lyckegaard A. Houwing S. Hagenzieker M. Legrand S.-A. (2011). Risk of injury by driving with alcohol and other drugs. Project No. TREN-05-FP6TR-S07.61320-518404-DRUID Henderson G. L. (1988). Designer drugs: past history and future prospects. J. Forensic Sci. 33 (2), 569575. PMID: 3286815. 10.1520/jfs11976j Hetland A. Carr D. B. (2014). Medications and impaired driving. Ann. Pharmacother. 48 (4), 494506. Epub 2014 Jan 28. PMID: 24473486; PMCID: PMC3965581. 10.1177/1060028014520882 Institóris L. Hidvégi E. Kovács K. Jámbor Á. Dobos A. Rárosi F. (2022). Drug consumption of suspected drug-influenced drivers in Hungary (2016-2018). Forensic Sci. Int. 336, 111325. Epub 2022 May 6. PMID: 35569293. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2022.111325 Kantor E. D. Rehm C. D. Haas J. S. Chan A. T. Giovannucci E. L. (2015). Trends in prescription drug use among adults in the United States from 1999-2012. JAMA 314 (17), 18181831. PMID: 26529160; PMCID: PMC4752169. 10.1001/jama.2015.13766 Kedzierski N. Mata D. (2023). Mitragynine in the Orange county DUID population. J. Anal. Toxicol. 47 (8), 770785. PMID: 37670456. 10.1093/jat/bkad066 Lemos N. P. (2014). Driving under the influence of synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist XLR-11. J. Forensic Sci. 59 (6), 16791683. 10.1111/1556-4029.12550 Li G. Brady J. E. Chen Q. (2013). Drug use and fatal motor vehicle crashes: a case-control study. Accid. Anal. Prev. 60, 205210. Epub 2013 Sep 8. PMID: 24076302. 10.1016/j.aap.2013.09.001 Logan B. K. D'Orazio A. L. Mohr A. L. A. Limoges J. F. Miles A. K. Scarneo C. E. (2018). Recommendations for toxicological investigation of drug-impaired driving and motor vehicle fatalities-2017 update. J. Anal. Toxicol. 42 (2), 6368. PMID: 29186455. 10.1093/jat/bkx082 Logan B. K. Lowrie K. J. Turri J. L. Yeakel J. K. Limoges J. F. Miles A. K. (2013). Recommendations for toxicological investigation of drug-impaired driving and motor vehicle fatalities. J. Anal. Toxicol. 37 (8), 552558. Epub 2013 Aug 13. PMID: 23943437. 10.1093/jat/bkt059 Lung D. Wilson N. Chatenet F. T. LaCroix C. Gerona R. (2016). Non-targeted screening for novel psychoactive substances among agitated emergency department patients. Clin. Toxicol. Feb 5 (2016), 319323. 10.3109/15563650.2016.1139714 National Transportation Safety Board (2022). Alcohol, other drug, and multiple drug use among drivers. Available online at: https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SRR2202.pdf. Papsun D. M. Chan-Hosokawa A. Lamb M. E. Logan B. (2023). Increasing prevalence of designer benzodiazepines in impaired driving: a 5-year analysis from 2017 to 2021. J. Anal. Toxicol. 47 (8), 668679. PMID: 37338191. 10.1093/jat/bkad036 Post S. Spiller H. A. Chounthirath T. Smith G. A. (2019). Kratom exposures reported to United States poison control centers: 2011-2017. Clin. Toxicol. (Phila) 57 (10), 847854. Epub 2019 Feb 20. PMID: 30786220. 10.1080/15563650.2019.1569236 Prozialeck W. C. Jivan J. K. Andurkar S. V. (2012). Pharmacology of kratom: an emerging botanical agent with stimulant, analgesic and opioid-like effects. J. Am. Osteopath Assoc. 112 (12), 792799. PMID: 23212430. Rajotte J. W. Palmentier J. F. P. Wallage H. R. (2017). Drug recognition evaluation and chemical confirmation of a 25C-NBOMe-Impaired driver. J. Forensic Sci. 62 (5), 14101413. Epub 2017 Mar 6. PMID: 28261791. 10.1111/1556-4029.13433 Reisfield G. M. Goldberger B. A. Gold M. S. DuPont R. L. (2012). The mirage of impairing drug concentration thresholds: a rationale for zero tolerance per se driving under the influence of drugs laws. J. Anal. Toxicol. 36 (5), 353356. 10.1093/jat/bks037 Richeval C. Nachon-Phanithavong M. Di Fazio V. Wiart J. F. Humbert L. Samyn N. (2019). Prevalence of new psychoactive substances in oral fluid specimens from French and Belgian drivers: comparison 2016/2017. J. Anal. Toxicol. 43 (2), e9e10. PMID: 30590712. 10.1093/jat/bky101 Riedel W. J. Vermeeren A. Van Boxtel M. P. J. Yuurman EFPM Verhey F. R. J. Jolles J. (1998). Mechanisms of drug-induced driving impairment: a dimensional approach. Hum. Psychophamacol 13, S49S63. 10.1002/(sici)1099-1077(1998110)13:2+<s49::aid-hup49>3.3.co;2-t Rudisill T. M. Zhao S. Abate M. A. Cob en J. H. Zhu M. (2014). Trends in drug use among drivers killed in U.S. traffic crashes, 1999–2010. Accid. Anal. Prev. 70, 178187. Epub 2014 May 3. PMID: 24793428; PMCID: PMC4064831. 10.1016/j.aap.2014.04.003 Soria M. L. (2018). Driving under the influence of new psychoactive substances. Span. J. Leg. Med. 44 (4), 169175. 10.1016/j.remle.2017.11.008 Thomas F. D. Darrah J. Graham L. Berning A. Blomberg R. Finstad K. (2022). Drug prevalence among seriously or fatally injured road users (Report No. DOT HS 813 399). Washington, D.C: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Trecki J. Gerona R. R. Ellison R. Thomas C. Mileusnic-Polchan D. (2022). Notes from the field: increased incidence of fentanyl-related deaths involving para-fluorofentanyl or metonitazene - Knox County, Tennessee, November 2020-August 2021. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. 71 (4), 153155. 10.15585/mmwr.mm7104a3 United Nations (2024). Road safety. 10.1007/978-981-97-4618-7_300722 United States Drug Enforcement Administration (2020). National Forensic Laboratory information System: NFLIDrug 2019 Annual Report. Springfield, VA: U.D. Drug Enforcement Administration. United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (2025). NPS data visualizations. Available online at: https://www.unodc.org/LSS/Page/NPS/DataVisualisations. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Diversion Control Division (2023a). DEA TOX: 2022 annual report. Springfield, VA: U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Diversion Control Division (2023b). DEA TOX: quarterly report - first quarter 2023. Springfield, VA: U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Diversion Control Division (2023c). DEA TOX: quarterly report - second quarter 2023. Springfield, VA: U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Diversion Control Division (2023d). DEA TOX: quarterly report - third quarter 2023. Springfield, VA: U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Diversion Control Division (2023e). DEA TOX: quarterly report - fourth quarter 2023. Springfield, VA: U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. Wille S. M. R. Richeval C. Nachon-Phanithavong M. Gaulier J. M. Di Fazio V. Humbert L. (2018). Prevalence of new psychoactive substances and prescription drugs in the Belgian driving under the influence of drugs population. Drug Test. Anal. 10 (3), 539547. Epub 2017 Jul 27. PMID: 28640970. 10.1002/dta.2232 Williams A. F. Peat M. A. Crouch D. J. Wells J. K. Finkle B. S. (1985). Drugs in fatally injured young male drivers. Public Health Rep. 100(1), 1925. Wilson F. A. Stimpson J. P. Pagán J. A. (2014). Fatal crashes from drivers testing positive for drugs in the U.S., 1993-2010. Public Health Rep. 129 (4), 342350. PMID: 24982537; PMCID: PMC4037460. 10.1177/003335491412900409 Wood D. M. Dargan P. I. (2020). The challenge of the novel psychoactive substances: how have we responded and what are the implications of this response? Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 86 (3), 407409. Epub 2020 Mar 6. PMID: 32144815; PMCID: PMC7080627. 10.1111/bcp.14236 Wright T. H. (2018). Suspected driving under the influence case involving mitragynine. J. Anal. Toxicol. 42 (7), e65e68. PMID: 29718282. 10.1093/jat/bky028 Wu A. H. Gerona R. Armenian P. French D. Petrie M. Lynch K. L. (2012). Role of liquid chromatography-high-resolution mass spectrometry (LC-HR/MS) in clinical toxicology. Clin. Toxicol. (Phila). 50 (8), 733742. Epub 2012 Aug 13. PMID: 22888997. 10.3109/15563650.2012.713108 Zawilska J. B. Wojcieszak J. (2019). An expanding world of new psychoactive substances-designer benzodiazepines. Neurotoxicology 73, 816. Epub 2019 Feb 23. PMID: 30802466. 10.1016/j.neuro.2019.02.015
      ‘Oh, my dear Thomas, you haven’t heard the terrible news then?’ she said. ‘I thought you would be sure to have seen it placarded somewhere. Alice went straight to her room, and I haven’t seen her since, though I repeatedly knocked at the door, which she has locked on the inside, and I’m sure it’s most unnatural of her not to let her own mother comfort her. It all happened in a moment: I have always said those great motor-cars shouldn’t be allowed to career about the streets, especially when they are all paved with cobbles as they are at Easton Haven, which are{331} so slippery when it’s wet. He slipped, and it went over him in a moment.’ My thanks were few and awkward, for there still hung to the missive a basting thread, and it was as warm as a nestling bird. I bent low--everybody was emotional in those days--kissed the fragrant thing, thrust it into my bosom, and blushed worse than Camille. "What, the Corner House victim? Is that really a fact?" "My dear child, I don't look upon it in that light at all. The child gave our picturesque friend a certain distinction--'My husband is dead, and this is my only child,' and all that sort of thing. It pays in society." leave them on the steps of a foundling asylum in order to insure [See larger version] Interoffice guff says you're planning definite moves on your own, J. O., and against some opposition. Is the Colonel so poor or so grasping—or what? Albert could not speak, for he felt as if his brains and teeth were rattling about inside his head. The rest of[Pg 188] the family hunched together by the door, the boys gaping idiotically, the girls in tears. "Now you're married." The host was called in, and unlocked a drawer in which they were deposited. The galleyman, with visible reluctance, arrayed himself in the garments, and he was observed to shudder more than once during the investiture of the dead man's apparel. HoME香京julia种子在线播放 ENTER NUMBET 0016www.eqgzyy.com.cn
      www.jrgdbf.com.cn
      hi04.org.cn
      www.jhtpkj.org.cn
      hckylu.com.cn
      www.tmzone.com.cn
      vxnews.com.cn
      plolpr.com.cn
      www.sdrctz.com.cn
      www.rgecwi.com.cn
      处女被大鸡巴操 强奸乱伦小说图片 俄罗斯美女爱爱图 调教强奸学生 亚洲女的穴 夜来香图片大全 美女性强奸电影 手机版色中阁 男性人体艺术素描图 16p成人 欧美性爱360 电影区 亚洲电影 欧美电影 经典三级 偷拍自拍 动漫电影 乱伦电影 变态另类 全部电 类似狠狠鲁的网站 黑吊操白逼图片 韩国黄片种子下载 操逼逼逼逼逼 人妻 小说 p 偷拍10幼女自慰 极品淫水很多 黄色做i爱 日本女人人体电影快播看 大福国小 我爱肏屄美女 mmcrwcom 欧美多人性交图片 肥臀乱伦老头舔阴帝 d09a4343000019c5 西欧人体艺术b xxoo激情短片 未成年人的 插泰国人夭图片 第770弾み1 24p 日本美女性 交动态 eee色播 yantasythunder 操无毛少女屄 亚洲图片你懂的女人 鸡巴插姨娘 特级黄 色大片播 左耳影音先锋 冢本友希全集 日本人体艺术绿色 我爱被舔逼 内射 幼 美阴图 喷水妹子高潮迭起 和后妈 操逼 美女吞鸡巴 鸭个自慰 中国女裸名单 操逼肥臀出水换妻 色站裸体义术 中国行上的漏毛美女叫什么 亚洲妹性交图 欧美美女人裸体人艺照 成人色妹妹直播 WWW_JXCT_COM r日本女人性淫乱 大胆人艺体艺图片 女同接吻av 碰碰哥免费自拍打炮 艳舞写真duppid1 88电影街拍视频 日本自拍做爱qvod 实拍美女性爱组图 少女高清av 浙江真实乱伦迅雷 台湾luanlunxiaoshuo 洛克王国宠物排行榜 皇瑟电影yy频道大全 红孩儿连连看 阴毛摄影 大胆美女写真人体艺术摄影 和风骚三个媳妇在家做爱 性爱办公室高清 18p2p木耳 大波撸影音 大鸡巴插嫩穴小说 一剧不超两个黑人 阿姨诱惑我快播 幼香阁千叶县小学生 少女妇女被狗强奸 曰人体妹妹 十二岁性感幼女 超级乱伦qvod 97爱蜜桃ccc336 日本淫妇阴液 av海量资源999 凤凰影视成仁 辰溪四中艳照门照片 先锋模特裸体展示影片 成人片免费看 自拍百度云 肥白老妇女 女爱人体图片 妈妈一女穴 星野美夏 日本少女dachidu 妹子私处人体图片 yinmindahuitang 舔无毛逼影片快播 田莹疑的裸体照片 三级电影影音先锋02222 妻子被外国老头操 观月雏乃泥鳅 韩国成人偷拍自拍图片 强奸5一9岁幼女小说 汤姆影院av图片 妹妹人艺体图 美女大驱 和女友做爱图片自拍p 绫川まどか在线先锋 那么嫩的逼很少见了 小女孩做爱 处女好逼连连看图图 性感美女在家做爱 近距离抽插骚逼逼 黑屌肏金毛屄 日韩av美少女 看喝尿尿小姐日逼色色色网图片 欧美肛交新视频 美女吃逼逼 av30线上免费 伊人在线三级经典 新视觉影院t6090影院 最新淫色电影网址 天龙影院远古手机版 搞老太影院 插进美女的大屁股里 私人影院加盟费用 www258dd 求一部电影里面有一个二猛哥 深肛交 日本萌妹子人体艺术写真图片 插入屄眼 美女的木奶 中文字幕黄色网址影视先锋 九号女神裸 和骚人妻偷情 和潘晓婷做爱 国模大尺度蜜桃 欧美大逼50p 西西人体成人 李宗瑞继母做爱原图物处理 nianhuawang 男鸡巴的视屏 � 97免费色伦电影 好色网成人 大姨子先锋 淫荡巨乳美女教师妈妈 性nuexiaoshuo WWW36YYYCOM 长春继续给力进屋就操小女儿套干破内射对白淫荡 农夫激情社区 日韩无码bt 欧美美女手掰嫩穴图片 日本援交偷拍自拍 入侵者日本在线播放 亚洲白虎偷拍自拍 常州高见泽日屄 寂寞少妇自卫视频 人体露逼图片 多毛外国老太 变态乱轮手机在线 淫荡妈妈和儿子操逼 伦理片大奶少女 看片神器最新登入地址sqvheqi345com账号群 麻美学姐无头 圣诞老人射小妞和强奸小妞动话片 亚洲AV女老师 先锋影音欧美成人资源 33344iucoom zV天堂电影网 宾馆美女打炮视频 色五月丁香五月magnet 嫂子淫乱小说 张歆艺的老公 吃奶男人视频在线播放 欧美色图男女乱伦 avtt2014ccvom 性插色欲香影院 青青草撸死你青青草 99热久久第一时间 激情套图卡通动漫 幼女裸聊做爱口交 日本女人被强奸乱伦 草榴社区快播 2kkk正在播放兽骑 啊不要人家小穴都湿了 www猎奇影视 A片www245vvcomwwwchnrwhmhzcn 搜索宜春院av wwwsee78co 逼奶鸡巴插 好吊日AV在线视频19gancom 熟女伦乱图片小说 日本免费av无码片在线开苞 鲁大妈撸到爆 裸聊官网 德国熟女xxx 新不夜城论坛首页手机 女虐男网址 男女做爱视频华为网盘 激情午夜天亚洲色图 内裤哥mangent 吉沢明歩制服丝袜WWWHHH710COM 屌逼在线试看 人体艺体阿娇艳照 推荐一个可以免费看片的网站如果被QQ拦截请复制链接在其它浏览器打开xxxyyy5comintr2a2cb551573a2b2e 欧美360精品粉红鲍鱼 教师调教第一页 聚美屋精品图 中韩淫乱群交 俄罗斯撸撸片 把鸡巴插进小姨子的阴道 干干AV成人网 aolasoohpnbcn www84ytom 高清大量潮喷www27dyycom 宝贝开心成人 freefronvideos人母 嫩穴成人网gggg29com 逼着舅妈给我口交肛交彩漫画 欧美色色aV88wwwgangguanscom 老太太操逼自拍视频 777亚洲手机在线播放 有没有夫妻3p小说 色列漫画淫女 午间色站导航 欧美成人处女色大图 童颜巨乳亚洲综合 桃色性欲草 色眯眯射逼 无码中文字幕塞外青楼这是一个 狂日美女老师人妻 爱碰网官网 亚洲图片雅蠛蝶 快播35怎么搜片 2000XXXX电影 新谷露性家庭影院 深深候dvd播放 幼齿用英语怎么说 不雅伦理无需播放器 国外淫荡图片 国外网站幼幼嫩网址 成年人就去色色视频快播 我鲁日日鲁老老老我爱 caoshaonvbi 人体艺术avav 性感性色导航 韩国黄色哥来嫖网站 成人网站美逼 淫荡熟妇自拍 欧美色惰图片 北京空姐透明照 狼堡免费av视频 www776eom 亚洲无码av欧美天堂网男人天堂 欧美激情爆操 a片kk266co 色尼姑成人极速在线视频 国语家庭系列 蒋雯雯 越南伦理 色CC伦理影院手机版 99jbbcom 大鸡巴舅妈 国产偷拍自拍淫荡对话视频 少妇春梦射精 开心激动网 自拍偷牌成人 色桃隐 撸狗网性交视频 淫荡的三位老师 伦理电影wwwqiuxia6commqiuxia6com 怡春院分站 丝袜超短裙露脸迅雷下载 色制服电影院 97超碰好吊色男人 yy6080理论在线宅男日韩福利大全 大嫂丝袜 500人群交手机在线 5sav 偷拍熟女吧 口述我和妹妹的欲望 50p电脑版 wwwavtttcon 3p3com 伦理无码片在线看 欧美成人电影图片岛国性爱伦理电影 先锋影音AV成人欧美 我爱好色 淫电影网 WWW19MMCOM 玛丽罗斯3d同人动画h在线看 动漫女孩裸体 超级丝袜美腿乱伦 1919gogo欣赏 大色逼淫色 www就是撸 激情文学网好骚 A级黄片免费 xedd5com 国内的b是黑的 快播美国成年人片黄 av高跟丝袜视频 上原保奈美巨乳女教师在线观看 校园春色都市激情fefegancom 偷窥自拍XXOO 搜索看马操美女 人本女优视频 日日吧淫淫 人妻巨乳影院 美国女子性爱学校 大肥屁股重口味 啪啪啪啊啊啊不要 操碰 japanfreevideoshome国产 亚州淫荡老熟女人体 伦奸毛片免费在线看 天天影视se 樱桃做爱视频 亚卅av在线视频 x奸小说下载 亚洲色图图片在线 217av天堂网 东方在线撸撸-百度 幼幼丝袜集 灰姑娘的姐姐 青青草在线视频观看对华 86papa路con 亚洲1AV 综合图片2区亚洲 美国美女大逼电影 010插插av成人网站 www色comwww821kxwcom 播乐子成人网免费视频在线观看 大炮撸在线影院 ,www4KkKcom 野花鲁最近30部 wwwCC213wapwww2233ww2download 三客优最新地址 母亲让儿子爽的无码视频 全国黄色片子 欧美色图美国十次 超碰在线直播 性感妖娆操 亚洲肉感熟女色图 a片A毛片管看视频 8vaa褋芯屑 333kk 川岛和津实视频 在线母子乱伦对白 妹妹肥逼五月 亚洲美女自拍 老婆在我面前小说 韩国空姐堪比情趣内衣 干小姐综合 淫妻色五月 添骚穴 WM62COM 23456影视播放器 成人午夜剧场 尼姑福利网 AV区亚洲AV欧美AV512qucomwwwc5508com 经典欧美骚妇 震动棒露出 日韩丝袜美臀巨乳在线 av无限吧看 就去干少妇 色艺无间正面是哪集 校园春色我和老师做爱 漫画夜色 天海丽白色吊带 黄色淫荡性虐小说 午夜高清播放器 文20岁女性荫道口图片 热国产热无码热有码 2015小明发布看看算你色 百度云播影视 美女肏屄屄乱轮小说 家族舔阴AV影片 邪恶在线av有码 父女之交 关于处女破处的三级片 极品护士91在线 欧美虐待女人视频的网站 享受老太太的丝袜 aaazhibuo 8dfvodcom成人 真实自拍足交 群交男女猛插逼 妓女爱爱动态 lin35com是什么网站 abp159 亚洲色图偷拍自拍乱伦熟女抠逼自慰 朝国三级篇 淫三国幻想 免费的av小电影网站 日本阿v视频免费按摩师 av750c0m 黄色片操一下 巨乳少女车震在线观看 操逼 免费 囗述情感一乱伦岳母和女婿 WWW_FAMITSU_COM 偷拍中国少妇在公车被操视频 花也真衣论理电影 大鸡鸡插p洞 新片欧美十八岁美少 进击的巨人神thunderftp 西方美女15p 深圳哪里易找到老女人玩视频 在线成人有声小说 365rrr 女尿图片 我和淫荡的小姨做爱 � 做爱技术体照 淫妇性爱 大学生私拍b 第四射狠狠射小说 色中色成人av社区 和小姨子乱伦肛交 wwwppp62com 俄罗斯巨乳人体艺术 骚逼阿娇 汤芳人体图片大胆 大胆人体艺术bb私处 性感大胸骚货 哪个网站幼女的片多 日本美女本子把 色 五月天 婷婷 快播 美女 美穴艺术 色百合电影导航 大鸡巴用力 孙悟空操美少女战士 狠狠撸美女手掰穴图片 古代女子与兽类交 沙耶香套图 激情成人网区 暴风影音av播放 动漫女孩怎么插第3个 mmmpp44 黑木麻衣无码ed2k 淫荡学姐少妇 乱伦操少女屄 高中性爱故事 骚妹妹爱爱图网 韩国模特剪长发 大鸡巴把我逼日了 中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片 大胆女人下体艺术图片 789sss 影音先锋在线国内情侣野外性事自拍普通话对白 群撸图库 闪现君打阿乐 ady 小说 插入表妹嫩穴小说 推荐成人资源 网络播放器 成人台 149大胆人体艺术 大屌图片 骚美女成人av 春暖花开春色性吧 女亭婷五月 我上了同桌的姐姐 恋夜秀场主播自慰视频 yzppp 屄茎 操屄女图 美女鲍鱼大特写 淫乱的日本人妻山口玲子 偷拍射精图 性感美女人体艺木图片 种马小说完本 免费电影院 骑士福利导航导航网站 骚老婆足交 国产性爱一级电影 欧美免费成人花花性都 欧美大肥妞性爱视频 家庭乱伦网站快播 偷拍自拍国产毛片 金发美女也用大吊来开包 缔D杏那 yentiyishu人体艺术ytys WWWUUKKMCOM 女人露奶 � 苍井空露逼 老荡妇高跟丝袜足交 偷偷和女友的朋友做爱迅雷 做爱七十二尺 朱丹人体合成 麻腾由纪妃 帅哥撸播种子图 鸡巴插逼动态图片 羙国十次啦中文 WWW137AVCOM 神斗片欧美版华语 有气质女人人休艺术 由美老师放屁电影 欧美女人肉肏图片 白虎种子快播 国产自拍90后女孩 美女在床上疯狂嫩b 饭岛爱最后之作 幼幼强奸摸奶 色97成人动漫 两性性爱打鸡巴插逼 新视觉影院4080青苹果影院 嗯好爽插死我了 阴口艺术照 李宗瑞电影qvod38 爆操舅母 亚洲色图七七影院 被大鸡巴操菊花 怡红院肿么了 成人极品影院删除 欧美性爱大图色图强奸乱 欧美女子与狗随便性交 苍井空的bt种子无码 熟女乱伦长篇小说 大色虫 兽交幼女影音先锋播放 44aad be0ca93900121f9b 先锋天耗ばさ无码 欧毛毛女三级黄色片图 干女人黑木耳照 日本美女少妇嫩逼人体艺术 sesechangchang 色屄屄网 久久撸app下载 色图色噜 美女鸡巴大奶 好吊日在线视频在线观看 透明丝袜脚偷拍自拍 中山怡红院菜单 wcwwwcom下载 骑嫂子 亚洲大色妣 成人故事365ahnet 丝袜家庭教mp4 幼交肛交 妹妹撸撸大妈 日本毛爽 caoprom超碰在email 关于中国古代偷窥的黄片 第一会所老熟女下载 wwwhuangsecome 狼人干综合新地址HD播放 变态儿子强奸乱伦图 强奸电影名字 2wwwer37com 日本毛片基地一亚洲AVmzddcxcn 暗黑圣经仙桃影院 37tpcocn 持月真由xfplay 好吊日在线视频三级网 我爱背入李丽珍 电影师傅床戏在线观看 96插妹妹sexsex88com 豪放家庭在线播放 桃花宝典极夜著豆瓜网 安卓系统播放神器 美美网丝袜诱惑 人人干全免费视频xulawyercn av无插件一本道 全国色五月 操逼电影小说网 good在线wwwyuyuelvcom www18avmmd 撸波波影视无插件 伊人幼女成人电影 会看射的图片 小明插看看 全裸美女扒开粉嫩b 国人自拍性交网站 萝莉白丝足交本子 七草ちとせ巨乳视频 摇摇晃晃的成人电影 兰桂坊成社人区小说www68kqcom 舔阴论坛 久撸客一撸客色国内外成人激情在线 明星门 欧美大胆嫩肉穴爽大片 www牛逼插 性吧星云 少妇性奴的屁眼 人体艺术大胆mscbaidu1imgcn 最新久久色色成人版 l女同在线 小泽玛利亚高潮图片搜索 女性裸b图 肛交bt种子 最热门有声小说 人间添春色 春色猜谜字 樱井莉亚钢管舞视频 小泽玛利亚直美6p 能用的h网 还能看的h网 bl动漫h网 开心五月激 东京热401 男色女色第四色酒色网 怎么下载黄色小说 黄色小说小栽 和谐图城 乐乐影院 色哥导航 特色导航 依依社区 爱窝窝在线 色狼谷成人 91porn 包要你射电影 色色3A丝袜 丝袜妹妹淫网 爱色导航(荐) 好男人激情影院 坏哥哥 第七色 色久久 人格分裂 急先锋 撸撸射中文网 第一会所综合社区 91影院老师机 东方成人激情 怼莪影院吹潮 老鸭窝伊人无码不卡无码一本道 av女柳晶电影 91天生爱风流作品 深爱激情小说私房婷婷网 擼奶av 567pao 里番3d一家人野外 上原在线电影 水岛津实透明丝袜 1314酒色 网旧网俺也去 0855影院 在线无码私人影院 搜索 国产自拍 神马dy888午夜伦理达达兔 农民工黄晓婷 日韩裸体黑丝御姐 屈臣氏的燕窝面膜怎么样つぼみ晶エリーの早漏チ○ポ强化合宿 老熟女人性视频 影音先锋 三上悠亚ol 妹妹影院福利片 hhhhhhhhsxo 午夜天堂热的国产 强奸剧场 全裸香蕉视频无码 亚欧伦理视频 秋霞为什么给封了 日本在线视频空天使 日韩成人aⅴ在线 日本日屌日屄导航视频 在线福利视频 日本推油无码av magnet 在线免费视频 樱井梨吮东 日本一本道在线无码DVD 日本性感诱惑美女做爱阴道流水视频 日本一级av 汤姆avtom在线视频 台湾佬中文娱乐线20 阿v播播下载 橙色影院 奴隶少女护士cg视频 汤姆在线影院无码 偷拍宾馆 业面紧急生级访问 色和尚有线 厕所偷拍一族 av女l 公交色狼优酷视频 裸体视频AV 人与兽肉肉网 董美香ol 花井美纱链接 magnet 西瓜影音 亚洲 自拍 日韩女优欧美激情偷拍自拍 亚洲成年人免费视频 荷兰免费成人电影 深喉呕吐XXⅩX 操石榴在线视频 天天色成人免费视频 314hu四虎 涩久免费视频在线观看 成人电影迅雷下载 能看见整个奶子的香蕉影院 水菜丽百度影音 gwaz079百度云 噜死你们资源站 主播走光视频合集迅雷下载 thumbzilla jappen 精品Av 古川伊织star598在线 假面女皇vip在线视频播放 国产自拍迷情校园 啪啪啪公寓漫画 日本阿AV 黄色手机电影 欧美在线Av影院 华裔电击女神91在线 亚洲欧美专区 1日本1000部免费视频 开放90后 波多野结衣 东方 影院av 页面升级紧急访问每天正常更新 4438Xchengeren 老炮色 a k福利电影 色欲影视色天天视频 高老庄aV 259LUXU-683 magnet 手机在线电影 国产区 欧美激情人人操网 国产 偷拍 直播 日韩 国内外激情在线视频网给 站长统计一本道人妻 光棍影院被封 紫竹铃取汁 ftp 狂插空姐嫩 xfplay 丈夫面前 穿靴子伪街 XXOO视频在线免费 大香蕉道久在线播放 电棒漏电嗨过头 充气娃能看下毛和洞吗 夫妻牲交 福利云点墦 yukun瑟妃 疯狂交换女友 国产自拍26页 腐女资源 百度云 日本DVD高清无码视频 偷拍,自拍AV伦理电影 A片小视频福利站。 大奶肥婆自拍偷拍图片 交配伊甸园 超碰在线视频自拍偷拍国产 小热巴91大神 rctd 045 类似于A片 超美大奶大学生美女直播被男友操 男友问 你的衣服怎么脱掉的 亚洲女与黑人群交视频一 在线黄涩 木内美保步兵番号 鸡巴插入欧美美女的b舒服 激情在线国产自拍日韩欧美 国语福利小视频在线观看 作爱小视颍 潮喷合集丝袜无码mp4 做爱的无码高清视频 牛牛精品 伊aⅤ在线观看 savk12 哥哥搞在线播放 在线电一本道影 一级谍片 250pp亚洲情艺中心,88 欧美一本道九色在线一 wwwseavbacom色av吧 cos美女在线 欧美17,18ⅹⅹⅹ视频 自拍嫩逼 小电影在线观看网站 筱田优 贼 水电工 5358x视频 日本69式视频有码 b雪福利导航 韩国女主播19tvclub在线 操逼清晰视频 丝袜美女国产视频网址导航 水菜丽颜射房间 台湾妹中文娱乐网 风吟岛视频 口交 伦理 日本熟妇色五十路免费视频 A级片互舔 川村真矢Av在线观看 亚洲日韩av 色和尚国产自拍 sea8 mp4 aV天堂2018手机在线 免费版国产偷拍a在线播放 狠狠 婷婷 丁香 小视频福利在线观看平台 思妍白衣小仙女被邻居强上 萝莉自拍有水 4484新视觉 永久发布页 977成人影视在线观看 小清新影院在线观 小鸟酱后丝后入百度云 旋风魅影四级 香蕉影院小黄片免费看 性爱直播磁力链接 小骚逼第一色影院 性交流的视频 小雪小视频bd 小视频TV禁看视频 迷奸AV在线看 nba直播 任你在干线 汤姆影院在线视频国产 624u在线播放 成人 一级a做爰片就在线看狐狸视频 小香蕉AV视频 www182、com 腿模简小育 学生做爱视频 秘密搜查官 快播 成人福利网午夜 一级黄色夫妻录像片 直接看的gav久久播放器 国产自拍400首页 sm老爹影院 谁知道隔壁老王网址在线 综合网 123西瓜影音 米奇丁香 人人澡人人漠大学生 色久悠 夜色视频你今天寂寞了吗? 菲菲影视城美国 被抄的影院 变态另类 欧美 成人 国产偷拍自拍在线小说 不用下载安装就能看的吃男人鸡巴视频 插屄视频 大贯杏里播放 wwwhhh50 233若菜奈央 伦理片天海翼秘密搜查官 大香蕉在线万色屋视频 那种漫画小说你懂的 祥仔电影合集一区 那里可以看澳门皇冠酒店a片 色自啪 亚洲aV电影天堂 谷露影院ar toupaizaixian sexbj。com 毕业生 zaixian mianfei 朝桐光视频 成人短视频在线直接观看 陈美霖 沈阳音乐学院 导航女 www26yjjcom 1大尺度视频 开平虐女视频 菅野雪松协和影视在线视频 华人play在线视频bbb 鸡吧操屄视频 多啪啪免费视频 悠草影院 金兰策划网 (969) 橘佑金短视频 国内一极刺激自拍片 日本制服番号大全magnet 成人动漫母系 电脑怎么清理内存 黄色福利1000 dy88午夜 偷拍中学生洗澡磁力链接 花椒相机福利美女视频 站长推荐磁力下载 mp4 三洞轮流插视频 玉兔miki热舞视频 夜生活小视频 爆乳人妖小视频 国内网红主播自拍福利迅雷下载 不用app的裸裸体美女操逼视频 变态SM影片在线观看 草溜影院元气吧 - 百度 - 百度 波推全套视频 国产双飞集合ftp 日本在线AV网 笔国毛片 神马影院女主播是我的邻居 影音资源 激情乱伦电影 799pao 亚洲第一色第一影院 av视频大香蕉 老梁故事汇希斯莱杰 水中人体磁力链接 下载 大香蕉黄片免费看 济南谭崔 避开屏蔽的岛a片 草破福利 要看大鸡巴操小骚逼的人的视频 黑丝少妇影音先锋 欧美巨乳熟女磁力链接 美国黄网站色大全 伦蕉在线久播 极品女厕沟 激情五月bd韩国电影 混血美女自摸和男友激情啪啪自拍诱人呻吟福利视频 人人摸人人妻做人人看 44kknn 娸娸原网 伊人欧美 恋夜影院视频列表安卓青青 57k影院 如果电话亭 avi 插爆骚女精品自拍 青青草在线免费视频1769TV 令人惹火的邻家美眉 影音先锋 真人妹子被捅动态图 男人女人做完爱视频15 表姐合租两人共处一室晚上她竟爬上了我的床 性爱教学视频 北条麻妃bd在线播放版 国产老师和师生 magnet wwwcctv1024 女神自慰 ftp 女同性恋做激情视频 欧美大胆露阴视频 欧美无码影视 好女色在线观看 后入肥臀18p 百度影视屏福利 厕所超碰视频 强奸mp magnet 欧美妹aⅴ免费线上看 2016年妞干网视频 5手机在线福利 超在线最视频 800av:cOm magnet 欧美性爱免播放器在线播放 91大款肥汤的性感美乳90后邻家美眉趴着窗台后入啪啪 秋霞日本毛片网站 cheng ren 在线视频 上原亚衣肛门无码解禁影音先锋 美脚家庭教师在线播放 尤酷伦理片 熟女性生活视频在线观看 欧美av在线播放喷潮 194avav 凤凰AV成人 - 百度 kbb9999 AV片AV在线AV无码 爱爱视频高清免费观看 黄色男女操b视频 观看 18AV清纯视频在线播放平台 成人性爱视频久久操 女性真人生殖系统双性人视频 下身插入b射精视频 明星潜规测视频 mp4 免賛a片直播绪 国内 自己 偷拍 在线 国内真实偷拍 手机在线 国产主播户外勾在线 三桥杏奈高清无码迅雷下载 2五福电影院凸凹频频 男主拿鱼打女主,高宝宝 色哥午夜影院 川村まや痴汉 草溜影院费全过程免费 淫小弟影院在线视频 laohantuiche 啪啪啪喷潮XXOO视频 青娱乐成人国产 蓝沢润 一本道 亚洲青涩中文欧美 神马影院线理论 米娅卡莉法的av 在线福利65535 欧美粉色在线 欧美性受群交视频1在线播放 极品喷奶熟妇在线播放 变态另类无码福利影院92 天津小姐被偷拍 磁力下载 台湾三级电髟全部 丝袜美腿偷拍自拍 偷拍女生性行为图 妻子的乱伦 白虎少妇 肏婶骚屄 外国大妈会阴照片 美少女操屄图片 妹妹自慰11p 操老熟女的b 361美女人体 360电影院樱桃 爱色妹妹亚洲色图 性交卖淫姿势高清图片一级 欧美一黑对二白 大色网无毛一线天 射小妹网站 寂寞穴 西西人体模特苍井空 操的大白逼吧 骚穴让我操 拉好友干女朋友3p