A review on the current methods of methamphetamine remediation, their limitations, and chemical degradation techniques that have been investigated

Mayer, Alexandra; Miskelly, Gordon M.

doi:10.1016/j.forc.2022.100399

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As a result, several countries and jurisdictions have set methamphetamine residue concentration thresholds over which remediation is required [3]. These thresholds vary from 0.05-15.00 μg/100 cm 2 depending on the source of residue contamination (i.e., manufacturing vs smoking) and how frequently the impacted area is occupied [3][4][5][6][7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategies to detect trace methamphetamine contamination on hard surfaces: Assessing realistic performance of commercially available presumptive tests and a laboratory‐based LC–MS/MS method

Naviaux,

Hedman,

Barkholtz

2024

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recreational methamphetamine production and heavy use can result in dwelling contamination that is difficult to detect. First responders and public health officials may use commercially available trace methamphetamine detection (presumptive) test kits to understand apparent and hidden dangers in impacted dwellings. Here, we assessed the limit of detection (LOD) of several commercially available presumptive test kits using simulated contaminated hard surfaces. Pyrex petri dishes were spiked with aliquots of methanolic methamphetamine solutions to reach desired simulated contamination levels. Commercially available presumptive tests were conducted according to manufacturer instructions and using included sample preparation materials, when available. Additionally, a laboratory‐based liquid chromatography‐triple quadrupole mass spectrometer (LC–MS/MS) trace methamphetamine quantification method was developed and validated using the EZSTATSG2 tool. For the LC–MS/MS method, samples were collected using 2‐ply alcohol prep pads and methamphetamine was extracted using a 1:1 (v:v) methanol: water solution. Most presumptive tests considered were able to detect trace levels of methamphetamine extracted from hard surfaces, with LOD ranging from 0.10–15.00 μg/sample. Comparatively, the laboratory‐based LC–MS/MS LOD was 0.05 μg/sample and limit of quantitation was 0.10 μg/sample. The LC–MS/MS method may be useful when the presence of dust or other contaminants interferes with presumptive test interpretation or reliability. Costs of presumptive tests varied from several dollars to tens of dollars, which is included alongside LOD results to aid stakeholders in identifying which test(s) are the best fit for purpose. Therefore, first responders, public health officials, and other stakeholders have several options for assessing trace methamphetamine contamination.

show abstract