Steven J Ondersma1, Jessica R Beatty2, Thomas G Rosano3, Ronald C Strickler4, Amy E Graham2, Robert J Sokol5. 1. a Department of Psychiatry , Wayne State University , Detroit , Michigan , USA. 2. b Merrill-Palmer Skillman Institute , Wayne State University , Detroit , Michigan , USA. 3. c Pathology & Laboratory Medicine , Albany Medical College , Albany , New York , USA. 4. d Division of Reproductive Medicine, Gynecology , Obstetrics, and Women's Health, Henry Ford Health System , Detroit , Michigan , USA. 5. e Obstetrics & Gynecology , Wayne State University , Detroit , Michigan , USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ethyl Glucoronide (EtG) and Ethyl Sulfate (EtS) have shown promise as biomarkers for alcohol and may be sensitive enough for use with pregnant women in whom even low-level alcohol use is important. However, there have been reports of over-sensitivity of EtG and EtS to incidental exposure to sources such as alcohol-based hand sanitizer. Further, few studies have evaluated these biomarkers among pregnant women, in whom the dynamics of these metabolites may differ. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated whether commercial EtG-EtS testing was vulnerable to high levels of environmental exposure to alcohol in pregnant women. METHODS: Two separate samples of five nurses-one pregnant and the other postpartum, all of whom reported high levels of alcohol-based hand sanitizer use-provided urine samples before and 4-8 hours after rinsing with alcohol-based mouthwash and using hand sanitizer. The five pregnant nurses provided urine samples before, during, and after an 8-hour nursing shift, during which they repeatedly cleansed with alcohol-based hand sanitizer (mean 33.8 uses). The five postpartum nurses used hand sanitizer repeatedly between baseline and follow-up urine samples. RESULTS: No urine samples were positive for EtG-EtS at baseline or follow-up, despite use of mouthwash and-in the pregnant sample-heavy use of hand sanitizer (mean of 33.8 uses) throughout the 8-hour shift. CONCLUSIONS/IMPORTANCE: Current, commercially available EtG-EtS testing does not appear vulnerable to even heavy exposure to incidental sources of alcohol among pregnant and postpartum women.
BACKGROUND:Ethyl Glucoronide (EtG) and Ethyl Sulfate (EtS) have shown promise as biomarkers for alcohol and may be sensitive enough for use with pregnant women in whom even low-level alcohol use is important. However, there have been reports of over-sensitivity of EtG and EtS to incidental exposure to sources such as alcohol-based hand sanitizer. Further, few studies have evaluated these biomarkers among pregnant women, in whom the dynamics of these metabolites may differ. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated whether commercial EtG-EtS testing was vulnerable to high levels of environmental exposure to alcohol in pregnant women. METHODS: Two separate samples of five nurses-one pregnant and the other postpartum, all of whom reported high levels of alcohol-based hand sanitizer use-provided urine samples before and 4-8 hours after rinsing with alcohol-based mouthwash and using hand sanitizer. The five pregnant nurses provided urine samples before, during, and after an 8-hour nursing shift, during which they repeatedly cleansed with alcohol-based hand sanitizer (mean 33.8 uses). The five postpartum nurses used hand sanitizer repeatedly between baseline and follow-up urine samples. RESULTS: No urine samples were positive for EtG-EtS at baseline or follow-up, despite use of mouthwash and-in the pregnant sample-heavy use of hand sanitizer (mean of 33.8 uses) throughout the 8-hour shift. CONCLUSIONS/IMPORTANCE: Current, commercially available EtG-EtS testing does not appear vulnerable to even heavy exposure to incidental sources of alcohol among pregnant and postpartum women.
Authors: X Joya; B Friguls; S Ortigosa; E Papaseit; S E Martínez; A Manich; O Garcia-Algar; R Pacifici; O Vall; S Pichini Journal: J Pharm Biomed Anal Date: 2012-01-16 Impact factor: 3.935
Authors: Hicham Kharbouche; Mohamed Faouzi; Nathalie Sanchez; Jean Bernard Daeppen; Marc Augsburger; Patrice Mangin; Christian Staub; Frank Sporkert Journal: Int J Legal Med Date: 2011-09-11 Impact factor: 2.686
Authors: Philip A May; Jason Blankenship; Anna-Susan Marais; J Phillip Gossage; Wendy O Kalberg; Ronel Barnard; Marlene De Vries; Luther K Robinson; Colleen M Adnams; David Buckley; Melanie Manning; Kenneth L Jones; Charles Parry; H Eugene Hoyme; Soraya Seedat Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2012-12-14 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: L Morini; E Marchei; F Vagnarelli; O Garcia Algar; A Groppi; L Mastrobattista; S Pichini Journal: Forensic Sci Int Date: 2010-01-08 Impact factor: 2.395
Authors: Friedrich Martin Wurst; Erika Kelso; Wolfgang Weinmann; Fritz Pragst; Michel Yegles; Inger Sundström Poromaa Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-01-25 Impact factor: 8.661