The Effect of Some Adulterants on Drug Abuse Detection by Immunoassay Test Strips

Reham El-Farouny, heba allah mabrouk, Nagwa Habib
{"title":"The Effect of Some Adulterants on Drug Abuse Detection by Immunoassay Test Strips","authors":"Reham El-Farouny, heba allah mabrouk, Nagwa Habib","doi":"10.21608/ejfsat.2023.222248.1296","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The use of immunoassays for drug screening has increased due to their sensitivity towards target analytes. Due to their potential to interfere with drug screening tests and provide false findings, adulterants pose a new challenge in the detection of drug abuse. Objectives: The current study aims to evaluate the effect of some adulterants on the detection of drug abuse in urine tested by immunoassay test strips and the effect of the adulterants on the validity of the results of these tests. Methodology: Urine samples tested positive by immunoassay test strips for one of the five abused drugs (tramadol, cannabis, morphine, benzodiazepines (BDZ), and amphetamines) were used. With the help of Indiko (Thermoscientific fully automated urine enzyme immunoassay), we chose two different concentrations of each drug, the first is just above the cutoff level of test strips, and the other is higher than the double cutoff. Four adulterants (vinegar, bleach, Visine eye drops, and water) were tested for their ability to generate false negative results for the chromatographic immunoassay test strips. Each adulterant was added to a urine sample containing 1 of 5 different drugs at fixed concentrations. Adulterants were also added to negative control samples to reveal how integrity criteria (Ph) and specific gravity (SG) were affected . Results: Out of the 4 adulterants, vinegar generated the most false negatives. Bleach turned both low and high concentrations of positive cannabis samples into negative ones. Visine eye drops masked the positivity of the low-concentration cannabis sample. Water was effective in concealing the positivity of the low-concentration BDZ sample. Conclusion: A positive urine sample that includes drugs may nevertheless be examined and declared \"clean and free of drugs\" after passing a routine screening procedure. We recommend that drug screening tests be frequently combined with adulterant test strips to guarantee that the integrity of the specimen has not been compromised before drug testing.","PeriodicalId":22435,"journal":{"name":"The Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences and Applied Toxicology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences and Applied Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21608/ejfsat.2023.222248.1296","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The use of immunoassays for drug screening has increased due to their sensitivity towards target analytes. Due to their potential to interfere with drug screening tests and provide false findings, adulterants pose a new challenge in the detection of drug abuse. Objectives: The current study aims to evaluate the effect of some adulterants on the detection of drug abuse in urine tested by immunoassay test strips and the effect of the adulterants on the validity of the results of these tests. Methodology: Urine samples tested positive by immunoassay test strips for one of the five abused drugs (tramadol, cannabis, morphine, benzodiazepines (BDZ), and amphetamines) were used. With the help of Indiko (Thermoscientific fully automated urine enzyme immunoassay), we chose two different concentrations of each drug, the first is just above the cutoff level of test strips, and the other is higher than the double cutoff. Four adulterants (vinegar, bleach, Visine eye drops, and water) were tested for their ability to generate false negative results for the chromatographic immunoassay test strips. Each adulterant was added to a urine sample containing 1 of 5 different drugs at fixed concentrations. Adulterants were also added to negative control samples to reveal how integrity criteria (Ph) and specific gravity (SG) were affected . Results: Out of the 4 adulterants, vinegar generated the most false negatives. Bleach turned both low and high concentrations of positive cannabis samples into negative ones. Visine eye drops masked the positivity of the low-concentration cannabis sample. Water was effective in concealing the positivity of the low-concentration BDZ sample. Conclusion: A positive urine sample that includes drugs may nevertheless be examined and declared "clean and free of drugs" after passing a routine screening procedure. We recommend that drug screening tests be frequently combined with adulterant test strips to guarantee that the integrity of the specimen has not been compromised before drug testing.
某些掺杂物对免疫测定试纸药物滥用检测的影响
背景:由于免疫分析法对目标分析物的敏感性,其在药物筛选中的应用日益增加。由于掺假物可能干扰药物筛选试验并提供虚假结果,因此对药物滥用的检测提出了新的挑战。目的:评价一些掺假物质对免疫试纸检测尿液中药物滥用的影响,以及掺假物质对检测结果效度的影响。方法:使用五种滥用药物(曲马多、大麻、吗啡、苯二氮卓类药物(BDZ)和安非他明)中的一种经免疫测定试纸检测呈阳性的尿样。在Indiko (Thermoscientific全自动尿酶免疫测定)的帮助下,我们选择了两种不同浓度的药物,第一种浓度刚好高于试纸的截止水平,另一种浓度高于双截止水平。四种掺假物(醋、漂白剂、Visine滴眼液和水)对色谱免疫测定试纸产生假阴性结果的能力进行了测试。每种掺假物被添加到含有5种不同药物中的1种固定浓度的尿液样本中。掺假物也被添加到阴性对照样品中,以揭示完整性标准(Ph)和比重(SG)是如何受到影响的。结果:在4种掺假物中,醋产生的假阴性最多。漂白剂将低浓度和高浓度的阳性大麻样本都变成了阴性。滴眼液掩盖了低浓度大麻样本的阳性反应。水能有效地掩盖低浓度BDZ样品的阳性反应。结论:阳性尿样(含药物)在通过常规筛查程序后仍可被检查并宣布为“干净且无药物”。我们建议经常将药物筛选试验与掺假试纸结合使用,以保证在药物试验前标本的完整性没有受到损害。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信