Toxicology Cases for the Clinical and Forensic Laboratory 2020
DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-12-815846-3.00099-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of methamphetamine detection in urine and oral fluid

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 11 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Recently, there has been a growing interest in saliva-based diagnostics for detecting drugs of abuse. , Drugs like methamphetamine (MA) easily enter the saliva of users via passive diffusion and ultrafiltration; MA is a relatively small molecule (MW ≈ 149 g/mol and ≪1900 Da) and is also lipophilic, and its basic p K a leads to good accumulation in its ionized form in slightly acidic saliva due to ion trapping . This effective partitioning of MA into saliva means that drug levels in saliva can give a good indication of users being impaired by the drug, rather than accumulation from historical use.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recently, there has been a growing interest in saliva-based diagnostics for detecting drugs of abuse. , Drugs like methamphetamine (MA) easily enter the saliva of users via passive diffusion and ultrafiltration; MA is a relatively small molecule (MW ≈ 149 g/mol and ≪1900 Da) and is also lipophilic, and its basic p K a leads to good accumulation in its ionized form in slightly acidic saliva due to ion trapping . This effective partitioning of MA into saliva means that drug levels in saliva can give a good indication of users being impaired by the drug, rather than accumulation from historical use.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%