The U.S. Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs: Current status and future considerations

Bush, Donna M.

doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2007.03.008

Cited by 189 publications

(104 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

100

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The US Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs have also proposed cut-offs for hair but have not been uniformly accepted. 108 …”

Section: Cut-offsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hair testing is taking root

Cooper

2011

Ann Clin Biochem

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An increasing number of toxicology laboratories are choosing to expand the services they offer to include hair testing in response to customer demands. Hair provides the toxicologist with many advantages over conventional matrices in that it is easy to collect, is a robust and stable matrix that does not require refrigeration, and most importantly, provides a historical profile of an individual's exposure to drugs or analytes of interest. The establishment of hair as a complementary technique in forensic toxicology is a direct result of the success of the matrix in medicolegal cases and the wide range of applications. However, before introducing hair testing, laboratories must consider what additional requirements they will need that extend beyond simply adapting methodologies already validated for blood or urine. Hair presents many challenges with respect to the lack of available quality control materials, extensive sample handling protocols and low drug concentrations requiring greater instrument sensitivity. Unfortunately, a common pitfall involves over-interpretation of the findings and must be avoided.

show abstract

“…The US Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs have also proposed cut-offs for hair but have not been uniformly accepted. 108 …”

Section: Cut-offsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hair testing is taking root

Cooper

2011

Ann Clin Biochem

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…And recently we published research papers about MA analysis from Korean abusers' hair and urine samples [5][6][7]. Even though oral fluid analysis has been performed worldwide in the field of driving under the influence of drug (DUID) and work place drug testing [8,9], drug analysis including MA in oral fluid is not performed yet in Korea. So in this study we established the analytical method for MA and its main metabolite, amphetamine (AM) in oral fluid.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of methamphetamine concentrations in oral fluid, urine and hair of twelve drug abusers using solid-phase extraction and GC-MS

Kim¹,

Lee²,

Choi³

et al. 2008

Ann Toxicol Anal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-Introduction: Methamphetamine (MA) is the most abused drug in Korea. In order to investigate the correlation of MA disposition in oral fluid, urine and hair specimens, quantitative analysis for MA and its main metabolite amphetamine (AM) was performed. Methods: Twelve drug abuser's oral fluid, urine and hair samples, submitted by the Police for drug testing, were used. As the preliminary test, MA was screened in urine and oral fluid by fluorescence polarization immunoassay. Extraction for MA was performed using solid-phase extraction after dilution with phosphate buffer. Hair samples were finely cut and incubated for 20 h in 1 mL methanol. Samples were derivatized with pentafluoropropionic acid anhydride for oral fluids and urines and trifluoroacetic acid anhydride for hairs. Quantitation of MA and AM was performed by GC-MS using SIM mode for oral fluids and hairs and full scan mode for urines. Results and conclusion: Concentrations of MA and AM in twelve urine samples ranged 120.4-73 216.0 and 67.6-4238.4 ng/mL, respectively. For oral fluids, just one sample gave negative result, and concentrations of MA and AM in eleven samples ranged 104.2-4603.3 and 32.4-268.6 ng/mL, respectively. For hairs, the concentrations of MA and AM were 3.40-98.25 and 0.21-4.35 ng/mg, respectively in twelve samples. The average ratios of AM/MA in urine, oral fluid and hair for eleven samples were 0.12, 0.11 and 0.06, respectively. Two-way ANOVA showed a significant difference of AM/MA ratios between three specimens. Multiple comparison by Tukey method, AM/MA ratio of hair was significantly lower than urine and oral fluid. a montré une différence significative des ratios métabolite/métamphétamine entre 3 matrices. Une seconde comparaison par le test de Tukey a montré que le ratio métabolite/métamphétamine pour les cheveux était significativement plus faible que pour la salive et les urines.

show abstract

“…In one study in United States, there were 6,800,000 urine specimens were collected for drug of abuse testing protocol under federal law. Of these urine samples, 2.1% gave a drug positive result and 0.15% were reported with diluted, substituted, or invalid tampering attempts [1]. For the pre-employment/workplace urine samples in the current research, the researchers revealed 56 cases (0.87%) with diluted, substituted, adulterated or invalid, higher than the 0.15% mentioned in the results of Bush [1].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 47%

“…Sample adulteration is usually performed by substitution, dilution or the addition of adulterants agents including so called "masking agents" sold commercially. Adulteration process is defined as the tampering or manipulation of a urine sample with the intention of changing the test results [1].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Urine Samples Tampering Pattern for Drugs of Abuse Testing: Experience of the Saudi Arabia Poison Control Centers

Ragab¹,

Alkhayyal²,

Al-Mousa³

et al. 2017

J Addict Res Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, urine substance of abuse (SOA) testing in the pre-employment/workplace and suspected SOA settings has become common in many countries all over the world. There have been multiple published research recommending the performance of the urine sample validity test (SVT) for substance of abuse testing administered in the pre-employment/workplace and suspected SOA settings. On the opposite side, very little researches focusing on variable procedures of urine adulteration in (SOA) testing process, including diluted, substituted, adulterated, and invalid tests. The current research investigated 7985 submitted urine drug test samples for sample validity test from pre-employment/workplace and suspected SOA settings in Saudi Arabia over one year. All preliminary immunoassay screen-positive urine sample drug tests were confirmed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry and liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry. This article found that the prevalence of tampering (diluted, substituted, or invalid tests) in urine samples from the pre-employment/workplace and suspected settings were 0.87% and 0.69%, respectively. The percentage of diluted, substituted, adulterated and invalid urine specimens from the pre-employment/workplace and suspected cases were 75%, 21.4%, 1.7%, 1.7% and 63.6%, 36.4%, 0%, 0% respectively. The most common substance of abuse detected from the pre-employment/workplace and suspected specimens were cannabis, followed by amphetamines. We recommend that all urine samples taken for substance of abuse testing from both the pre-employment/workplace and suspected settings need to be investigated for validity.

show abstract

The U.S. Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs: Current status and future considerations

Cited by 189 publications

References 0 publications

Hair testing is taking root

Hair testing is taking root

Comparison of methamphetamine concentrations in oral fluid, urine and hair of twelve drug abusers using solid-phase extraction and GC-MS

Urine Samples Tampering Pattern for Drugs of Abuse Testing: Experience of the Saudi Arabia Poison Control Centers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About