sized regional laboratory is between 10% to 15%. Tat indicates, at a minimum, 1 out of every 10 urines submited for drugs of abuse testing are substituted. Recently, large reference laboratories have reported that no further testing was necessary to specifically test for the presence of synthetic urines because states have passed laws to make it illegal. Tey stated that over 17 states have passed such laws which make the possession of synthetic urines illegal. Tis course of action is completely ineffective, as the onslaught of the use of synthetic urine is increasing at an alarming rate, puting the public directly in harm’s way. Te state of North Carolina passed a bill in 2002— Chapter 14, Article 52, 14-401.20—that makes it a felony to substitute samples submited for drug testing. It’s been 15 years, and this statute is completely ineffective. According to a USA Today article, between 2005 and 2013 “eight people have been charged in Tippecanoe County, Indiana, with possession of a device or substance to interfere with a screening test, a Class B misdemeanor.” In the very same newspaper article, an individual from another lab states that “synthetic urine is suspected when temperature levels were out of range” and no other testing was performed on any other samples to ensure synthetic urine was not submited. As you can see from these real-world examples, the answer is not to put your head in the sand and pretend it’s not happening. Te technology is and has been available to stop this. At a 10% substitution rate, it’s only a mater of time until a semi tractor-trailer kills an innocent family, a bus runs off the road, or another incident occurs due to a substituted sample. A direct quote from a director of the world’s leading lab chain is that “chemistry is not the answer.” Nothing could be further from the truth. You just need good chemists. All laboratories should have a zero-tolerance policy regarding fake urine. Tose of us who operate alcohol and drug testing


laboratories cannot in good conscience state that “chemistry is not the answer”; to do so is reckless and endangers countless innocent people. In our opinion, even one sample that has been substituted is one too many, and that has led to development of reagents and on-site testing strips to detect and confirm the presence of synthetic urine. Te fact that a lab director recently stated that this problem cannot be solved via chemistry is short-sighted and shows a clear lack of leadership. It also shows there are laboratories out there that care more about their botom line than the lives of their clients and fellow citizens. Te matrix of synthetic urines sold as


fetish or novelty urine is exactly the same as human urine. So laboratories that tell their customers they are checking the negativity of samples and then assay the sample for only creatinine is laughable. Tese synthetic urines contain normal levels of urea (uric acid), creatinine, pH, specific gravity, proteins, and many other normal constituents. Unless the laboratory is directly testing for the presence of synthetic urine, they will never know if they have one. As we are in the throes of an opioid crisis, the detection of synthetic urines becomes paramount to saving lives. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, 115 people are dying daily from the use of opioids and it annually costs the economy $78.5 billion a year due to lost productivity, health care, and legal involvement. In insurance testing, the impact of the use of synthetic urine to hide a health condition is enormous. An individual could get a million-dollar policy on themselves while duping the insurance company to hide their potentially fatal condition. Te botom line is the use of synthetic urine affects us all. It is our task as laboratorians to ensure that the results that we return are the correct ones and that the sample provided was not altered or faked in any way. Any laboratory test, whether for blood glucose or drugs


of abuse, is only as good as the sample provided. Knowing that test samples are fake without doing anything about it is a sad state of affairs for laboratory science. Laboratories should be proactive, not inactive, and if necessary be forced to deal with this issue as quickly as possible—lives are on the line, and every second counts.


Conclusion As drug abuse rises, the opportunity for atempting to substitute a test will rise as well. Te addition of a synthetic-testing system, while either in strip form or liquid reagent, should be an integral part of standard procedure to stop synthetic urine from passing screening tests. Te reagents and strips should allow for collectors and laboratories to beter ensure correct results for clients. ❚


References 1


Jaffee, WB, Trucco, E, Levy, S, and Weiss, RD. Is This Urine Really Negative? A Systematic Review of Tampering Methods in Urine Drug Screening and Testing. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 33: 33-42, 2007.


2


Cook, JD, Caplan, YH, LoDico, CF, and Bush, DM. The Characterization of Human Urine for Specimen Validity Determination in Workplace Drug Testing: A Review. Journal of Analytical Toxicology, 24: 579-588, 2000.


3


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/08/ fake-urine-poses-law-enforcement-challenge/2498017/


4


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30350- 2004Mar27_2.html


5


https://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/opioids/opioid- overdose-crisis


Sciteck© Diagnostics, Inc., manufacturing provided the dipsticks and reagents used to detect synthetic urine in the methods described in this article.


The Forensic Team of Scientists at Sciteck, led by Jack V. Smith, have over 100 years of forensic and clinical laboratory experi- ence. These scientists have 34 U.S. & international patents, multiple publications in peer-reviewed journals, and were the first to patent and market adulteration reagents and test strips for specimen validity and on-site adulteration testing starting in 1989.


www.datia.org


datia focus


33


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