首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
检索        


Effect of Urine Adulterants on Commercial Drug Abuse Screening Test Strip Results
Authors:Ivana Raj&#x;i&#x;  Dragana Javorac  Simona Tatovi&#x;  Aleksandra Repi&#x;  Danijela &#x;uki&#x;-&#x;osi&#x;  Sneana &#x;or&#x;evi&#x;  Vera Luki&#x;  Zorica Bulat
Abstract:Immunochromatographic strips for urine drug screening tests (UDSTs) are common and very suitable for drug abuse monitoring, but are also highly susceptible to adulterants kept in the household, which can significantly alter test results. The aim of this study was to see how some of these common adulterants affect UDST results in practice and whether they can be detected by sample validity tests with pH and URIT 11G test strips. To this end we added household chemicals (acids, alkalis, oxidizing agents, surfactants, and miscellaneous substances) to urine samples positive for amphetamine, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), tetrahydrocannabinol, heroin, cocaine, or benzodiazepines (diazepam or alprazolam) and tested them with one-component immunochromatographic UDST strips. The UDST for cocaine resisted adulteration the most, while the cannabis test produced the most false negative results. The most potent adulterant that barely changed the physiological properties of urine specimens and therefore escaped adulteration detection was vinegar. Besides lemon juice, it produced the most false negative test results. In conclusion, some urine adulterants, such as vinegar, could pass urine specimen validity test and remain undetected by laboratory testing. Our findings raise concern about this issue of preventing urine tampering and call for better control at sampling, privacy concerns notwithstanding, and better sample validity tests.Key words: false negative, household chemicals, immunochromatographic assay, lemon juice, URIT 11G, vinegar
Keywords:
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号