Literature DB >> 12423001

Performance evaluation of three on-site adulterant detection devices for urine specimens.

Michelle R Peace1, Lisa D Tarnai.   

Abstract

The performance of three on-site adulterant detection devices that assess the integrity of urine specimens collected for drug-of-abuse testing was evaluated: the Intect 7, MASK Ultra Screen, and Adultacheck 4. Intect 7 simultaneously tests creatinine, nitrite, glutaraldehyde, pH, specific gravity, and the presence of bleach and pyridinium chlorochromate (PCC). Mask Ultra Screen tests creatinine, nitrite, pH, specific gravity, and oxidants, and Adultacheck 4 tests creatinine, nitrite, glutaraldehyde, and pH. Urine specimens were prepared with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration regulated analytes at 50% above the cut-off concentrations. Stealth, Urine Luck, Instant Clean ADD-IT-ive, and KLEAR were added individually to the drug-added urine specimens so that their concentrations reflected the "optimum" usage reported in their package inserts and 25% above and below that optimum. Stealth is reported to be peroxidase; Urine Luck is believed to be PCC; Instant Clean ADD-it-ive reportedly contains glutaraldehyde, and Klear is a nitrite. The following diluents/adulterants were added at 25%, 33%, and 50% of the volume of drug-added urine: distilled water, bleach, ammonia, and vinegar. Of the devices tested, Intect 7 proved to be the most sensitive, and it correctly indicated the presence of adulterant or diluent in all samples tested. In order to do so, all indication pads had to be assessed in concert. Adultacheck 4 specifically assesses four characteristics of urine integrity and is therefore very limited in detecting the use of several popular adulterants that are commercially available. Although it correctly assessed the four characteristics, it did not detect the use of Stealth, Urine Luck, or Instant Clean ADD-it-ive. Mask Ultra Screen can potentially detect a broader range of adulterants than Adultacheck 4. However, in practice, it only detected them at levels well above their optimum usage, making it less efficacious than Intect 7. Clearly, the specific identification of an adulterant is a trade-off for sensitive detection of several adulterants.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12423001     DOI: 10.1093/jat/26.7.464

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anal Toxicol        ISSN: 0146-4760            Impact factor:   3.367


  3 in total

1.  A case of psychosis after use of a detoxification kit and a review of techniques, risks, and regulations associated with the subversion of urine drug tests.

Authors:  Moneeshindra Singh Mittal; Rachna Kalia; Ahsan Y Khan
Journal:  Prim Care Companion CNS Disord       Date:  2011

Review 2.  Current and emerging trends in point-of-care urinalysis tests.

Authors:  Rongwei Lei; Rannon Huo; Chandra Mohan
Journal:  Expert Rev Mol Diagn       Date:  2019-12-12       Impact factor: 5.225

3.  Urine specimen validity test for drug abuse testing in workplace and court settings.

Authors:  Shin-Yu Lin; Hei-Hwa Lee; Jong-Feng Lee; Bai-Hsiun Chen
Journal:  J Food Drug Anal       Date:  2017-02-14       Impact factor: 6.157

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.