1 / 18

The Science Behind Drugs Testing -Past, Present and Future-

The Science Behind Drugs Testing -Past, Present and Future-. Dr Francois Oosthuizen – Senior Chemist & Research Officer, Toxicology laboratory, ChemCentre. About ChemCentre. ChemCentre provides chemical and forensic testing for the State

kirk
Download Presentation

The Science Behind Drugs Testing -Past, Present and Future-

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Science Behind Drugs Testing-Past, Present and Future- Dr Francois Oosthuizen – Senior Chemist & Research Officer, Toxicology laboratory, ChemCentre

  2. About ChemCentre • ChemCentre provides chemical and forensic testing for the State • We provide forensic toxicology services (including drug testing) to: • WA Police • Office of the State Coroner • A wide range of private clients

  3. The Challenge • Increased importance of Drug testing in society • Wide spectrum of services (coronial, sobriety, criminal, workplace) • Meeting their individual needs • Adapting to a fast changing market

  4. Common Categories: • Cannabinoids • Amphetamine • Opiates • Cocaine • Benzodiazepines • other

  5. Drug Testing – Current Approaches: • Blood • Urine (AS/NZ 4308-2008) • Oral Fluid (AS 4760-2006)

  6. Blood: • Closest relationship to brain concentrations • Parent Drug • Extensive literature • Somewhat invasive • Limited Detection Window • No on-site testing capability Keith R. Allen, Annals of Clinical Biochemistry, 48, 2011, 531-541 (and references therein)

  7. Urine: • Less Invasive sample collection • Some on-site testing capabilities • Broad detection time window • Targets metabolites • No relationship to brain concentrations • No relationship between urine concentration and effect • Time delay for collection.

  8. Urine cont’d: • Adulteration, dilution or falsification of samples • ‘Shy Bladder’ syndrome • Broad detection time window • Special facilities needed

  9. Oral Fluid: • Least invasive sample collection • No time delay for collection • Targets parent drugs • Some on-site testing capabilities • Limited relationship to blood concentrations • Relationship between oral fluid concentration and effect? • Limited detection window.

  10. Oral Fluid cont’d: • Limited adulteration • Buffer solutions can pose restrictions on type of analysis • Collecting enough – ‘dry mouth syndrome’ Keith R. Allen, Annals of Clinical Biochemistry, 48, 2011, 531-541 (and references therein)

  11. Time Window for Detection: Depends on several factors: • Dose of drugs • Frequency of dosing • Individual metabolism • Cut-off used to measure drugs • Matrix tested Keith R. Allen, Annals of Clinical Biochemistry, 48, 2011, 531-541 (and references therein)

  12. Detection Times - Urine Detection (h)max. Det (days)cut-off (ng/ml) MA (10 mg) 87 ± 51 hours 6 days max 2.5 MDMA (100 mg) 48 hours 20 THCA (1.75%) 34 95 15 (3.50%) 87 15 Heroin (morphine) 11 – 54 11.3 Cocaine(BZE) 48 – 72 22 1000 Alaine G. Verstraete, Therapeutic Drug Monitoring, vol 26, No. 2, April 2004 (and references therein)

  13. Detection Times – Oral Fluid Detection (h)cut-off (ng/ml) MA (10 mg) 24 hours 2.5 MDMA (100 mg) 24 hours 126 THC 34 0.5 Heroin (MAM) (20 mg) 0.5 – 8 1 Morphine (20 mg) 12 – 24 1 Cocaine(cocaine) 5 – 12 1 Cocaine(BZE) 12 –24 1 Alaine G. Verstraete, Therapeutic Drug Monitoring, vol 26, No. 2, April 2004 (and references therein)

  14. Adulteration Added to urine in an attempt to interfere with the screening and/or confirmatory assays themselves or reduce the drug level by chemical destruction. • Altering pH of sample • Sample dilution or replacement (creatinine testing) (in-vitroorin-vivo) • Oxidising agents (bleach, conc. lemon juice, vinegar) • More recently products sold on internet include ‘Urine Luck’, ‘Klear’, ‘Instant Clean’ • Active ingredient Pyridinium chlorochromate, gluteraldehyde and peroxidase with peroxide. • Guidelines with regards to level of adulterants and pH in urine have been published (laboratory-based and on-site adulteration tests available) • Visual inspection to be carried out

  15. Adulteration cont’d No doubt that more novel ways of beating the urine drug test will be pursued and hence the attraction of drug testing moving toward oral fluid. • Easier supervision renders tampering with sample difficult • Several commercial oral fluid adulterants available but their mode of action very similar to common mouthwash. They do not destroy or change pH of the oral fluid. • Sucking sterilising tablets (sodium dichloroisocyanurate) immediately prior to sample collection – will destroy lot of drug(s) present Keith R. Allen, Annals of Clinical Biochemistry, 48, 2011, 531-541 (and references therein)

  16. Instrumentation • LCMS – QQQ • LCMS – QTOF • GCMS

  17. Lab Confirmations (LCMS-QQQ)

  18. Future Challenges • Synthetic Cannabinoids • DMAA • ‘Bath Salts’ (MDPV, 4-MMC) • Salvia Divinorum • Tryptamines • Designer Amphetamine Drugs

More Related