Drugs may be absorbed or
otherwise adhere to certain materials or surfaces during OF collection and handling—such as the collection pad on the device.
problematic than those for urine or blood specimens. For donors, OF collections are far less invasive and anxiety-provoking than urine or other specimen collections. OF is now a commonly used speci-
men in non-regulated workplace setings, driving-under-the-influence investiga- tions, athletic and pain management test- ing and it has been proposed for regulated workplace testing. With the proliferation of OF collections and testing, there has been a concurrently growing awareness of the pitfalls of collection protocols and devices. Commercial pressures have forced many devices to be improved or removed from the market. Many commer- cial collection devices now have a volume indicator that helps ensure that a known, sufficient and consistent volume of OF is collected. Tis single improvement ad- dresses much of the collection uncertainty discussed above. Many devices now also incorporate stabilizing buffers that im- prove both drug stability and recovery— particularly of important, yet problematic drugs such as THC. Although there are currently no uniform regulatory standards for the performance of OF collections and devices, recommendations have been made (Cooper 2011). Terefore, the drug testing community needs to be cognizant of relevant OF collection variables and informed about device performance. Te peer-reviewed scientific literature should be an unbiased source of information about a device’s performance. Lacking scientific literature, manufacturers should have experimental data describing their device’s collection volume, precision of
the collection volume, buffer volume and its preciseness, drug recovery and drug stability. Devices without experimental data to characterize and support their ef- ficacy should be avoided. ❚
Suggested Reading
Chang K. Interactions between drugs and saliva-stimulating parafilm and their implications in measurements of saliva drug levels. Comm Chem Pathol Pharmcol (1976) 13:357–360.
Cooper G, Moore C, George C and Pichini. Guidelines for European workplace drug testing in oral fluid. (2011). Drug Testing and Analysis. 3;269–276.
Crouch, DJ. Oral fluid collection: The forgotten variable. (2005). Forensic Sci Inter. 150:165–73.
Crouch DJ, Day J and Baudys JK. Evaluation of saliva/oral fluid as and alternate drug testing specimen—final report. NISTR 7139. (2005). National Institute of Standards and Technology. Gaithersburg MD. Pp1–70.
Hepler BR and Isenschmid DS. Specimen selection, collection, preservation and security. (Chapter 12.2) in Drug Abuse Handbook second edition. (2007). CRC Press Boca Raton, FL. Pp975–991.
Langel K, Engblom C, Pehrsson A, Gunnar T, Ariniemi K and Lillsunde P. Drug testing in oral fluid—evaluation of sample collection devices. (2008). J Anal Tox. 32;393–401.
Malamud D and Tabak L. Saliva as a diagnostic fluid. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. (1993). NY, NY. Pp1–348.
Pounder DJ and Jones GR. Post-mortem redistribution—a toxicological nightmare. (1990). Forensic Sci Inter. 45(3):253–263.
Quintela, O., Crouch, D.J. and Andrenyak, D.M. Recovery of drugs of abuse from the Immunalysis Quantasal™ Oral Fluid Collection Device. (2006) J. Anal Tox. 30:614–16.
Dennis Crouch currently has a toxicology con- sulting service, and most recently served as the Director of Research and Business Development Aegis Sciences Corporation in Nashville, TN. Pre- viously, he was Director of Research & Develop- ment at Ameritox, Ltd in Midland, TX, and spent the majority of his career at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City where he was the Co-Director of the Center for Human Toxicology, Director of the Sports Medicine Research & Testing Labora- tory and a Research Associate Professor at the College of Pharmacy, in the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology.
14
datia focus
spring 2013
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62