Jerome P Smith1, Deborah L Sammons2, Jack R Pretty2, Kristine S Kurtz3, Shirley A Robertson2, D Gayle DeBord2, Thomas H Connor2, John E Snawder2. 1. Division of Applied Research and Technology, National institute for Occupational Safety & Heath, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Cincinnati, OH, USA jps3@cdc.gov. 2. Division of Applied Research and Technology, National institute for Occupational Safety & Heath, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Cincinnati, OH, USA. 3. Bureau Veritas North America, Novi, MI, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Contamination of workplace surfaces by antineoplastic drugs presents an exposure risk for healthcare workers. Traditional instrumental methods to detect contamination such as gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) or liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) are sensitive and accurate but expensive and incapable of producing results in real time. This limits their utility in preventing worker exposure. We are currently developing monitors based on lateral flow immunoassay that can detect drug contamination in near real time. In this report, we describe the laboratory performance of a 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) monitor. METHODS: The monitor was evaluated by spiking ceramic, vinyl, composite, stainless steel, and glass surfaces of 100 cm(2) area with 5-FU masses of 0, 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100 ng. The surface was sampled with a wetted cotton swab, the swab was extracted with buffer, and the resulting solution was applied to a lateral flow monitor. Two ways of evaluating the response of these monitors were used: an electronic method where a lateral flow reader was used for measuring line intensities, and a visual method where the intensity of the test line was visually compared to the control line. RESULTS: The 5-FU monitor is capable of detecting 10 ng/100 cm(2) (0.1 ng/cm(2)) using the electronic reader and 25 ng/100 cm(2) (0.25 ng/cm(2)) using the visual comparison method for the surfaces studied. The response of the monitors was compared to LC-MS/MS results for the same samples for validation and there was good correlation of the two methods but some differences in absolute response, especially at higher spiking levels for the surface samples.
OBJECTIVES: Contamination of workplace surfaces by antineoplastic drugs presents an exposure risk for healthcare workers. Traditional instrumental methods to detect contamination such as gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) or liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) are sensitive and accurate but expensive and incapable of producing results in real time. This limits their utility in preventing worker exposure. We are currently developing monitors based on lateral flow immunoassay that can detect drug contamination in near real time. In this report, we describe the laboratory performance of a 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) monitor. METHODS: The monitor was evaluated by spiking ceramic, vinyl, composite, stainless steel, and glass surfaces of 100 cm(2) area with 5-FU masses of 0, 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100 ng. The surface was sampled with a wetted cotton swab, the swab was extracted with buffer, and the resulting solution was applied to a lateral flow monitor. Two ways of evaluating the response of these monitors were used: an electronic method where a lateral flow reader was used for measuring line intensities, and a visual method where the intensity of the test line was visually compared to the control line. RESULTS: The 5-FU monitor is capable of detecting 10 ng/100 cm(2) (0.1 ng/cm(2)) using the electronic reader and 25 ng/100 cm(2) (0.25 ng/cm(2)) using the visual comparison method for the surfaces studied. The response of the monitors was compared to LC-MS/MS results for the same samples for validation and there was good correlation of the two methods but some differences in absolute response, especially at higher spiking levels for the surface samples.
Authors: Thomas H Connor; D Gayle DeBord; Jack R Pretty; Marc S Oliver; Tracy S Roth; Peter S J Lees; Edward F Krieg; Bonnie Rogers; Carmen P Escalante; Christine A Toennis; John C Clark; Belinda C Johnson; Melissa A McDiarmid Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Jack R Pretty; Thomas H Connor; Ivan Spasojevic; Kristine S Kurtz; Jeffrey L McLaurin; Clayton B'Hymer; D Gayle Debord Journal: J Oncol Pharm Pract Date: 2010-12-23 Impact factor: 1.809