Evaluation of four oral fluid devices (DDS®, Drugtest 5000®, Drugwipe 5+® and RapidSTAT®) for on-site monitoring drugged driving in comparison with UHPLC–MS/MS analysis

Cannabinoids determination in oral fluid by SPME-GC/MS and UHPLC-MS/MS and its application on suspected drivers

The confirmation of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in oral fluid (OF) is an important issue for assessing Driving Under the Influence of Drugs (DUID). The aim of this research was to develop a highly sensitive method with minimal sample pre-treatment suitable for the analysis of small OF volumes (100 μL) for the confirmation of cannabinoids in DUID cases. Two methods were compared for the confirmation of THC in residual OF samples, obtained from a preliminary on-site screening with commercial devices. An ultra high performance LC-MS (UHPLC-MS/MS) method and an SPME-GC/MS method were hence developed. 100 μL of the residual mixture OF/preservative buffer or neat OF was simply added to 10 μL of THC-D3 (1 μg/mL) and submitted to the two different analyses: A - direct injection of 10 μL in UHPLC-MS/MS in positive electrospray ionisation (ESI) mode and B - sampling for 30 min with SPME (100 μm polydimethylsiloxane or PDMS fibre) and direct injection by desorption of the fibre in the GC injection port. The lowest limit of detection (LLOD) of THC was 2 ng/mL in UHPLC-MS/MS and 0.5 ng/mL in SPME-GC/MS. In addition, cannabidiol (CBD) and cannabinol (CBN) could be detected in GC/MS equipment at 2 ng/mL, whilst in UHPLC-MS/MS the LLOD was 20 ng/mL. Both methods were applied to 70 samples coming from roadside tests. By SPME-GC/MS analysis, THC was confirmed in 42 samples, whilst CBD was detected in 21 of them, along with CBN in 14 samples. THC concentrations ranged from traces below the lowest limit of quantification or LLOQ (2 ng/mL) up to 690 ng/mL.

Trends in drug testing in oral fluid and hair as alternative matrices

The use of alternative matrices such as oral fluid and hair has increased in the past decades because of advances in analytical technology. However, there are still many issues that need to be resolved. Standardized protocols of sample pretreatment are needed to link the detected concentrations to final conclusions. The development of suitable proficiency testing schemes is required. Finally, interpretation issues such as link to effect, adulteration, detection markers and thresholds will hamper the vast use of these matrices. Today, several niche areas apply these matrices with success, such as drugs and driving for oral fluid and drug-facilitated crimes for hair. Once those issues are resolved, the number of applications will markedly grow in the future.

Detecting cannabis use on the human skin surface via an electronic nose system

The most commonly used drug testing methods are based on the analysis of hair and urine using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry or immunoassay screening. These methods are time-consuming and partly expensive. One alternative method could be the application of an “electronic nose” (eNose). We have developed an eNose to detect directly on the human skin surface metabolic changes in the human body odor caused by cannabis consumption. Twenty cannabis-smoking and 20 tobacco-smoking volunteers were enrolled in this study. For the sensor signal data processing, two different methods were applied: Principle component analysis (PCA) with discriminant analysis, and the method of pattern recognition with subsequent support vector machines (SVM) processing. The PCA analysis achieved a correct classification of 70%, whereas the SVM obtained an accuracy of 92.5% (sensitivity 95%, specificity 90%) between cannabis-consuming volunteers and tobacco-smoking subjects. This study shows evidence that a low-cost, portable and fast-working eNose system could be useful for health protection, security agencies and for forensic investigations. The ability to analyze human body odor with an eNose opens up a wide field for diagnosing other drugs and also various diseases.

Cannabinoids in oral fluid by on-site immunoassay and by GC-MS using two different oral fluid collection devices

Oral fluid (OF) enables non-invasive sample collection for on-site drug testing, but performance of on-site tests with occasional and frequent smokers' OF to identify cannabinoid intake requires further evaluation. Furthermore, as far as we are aware, no studies have evaluated differences between cannabinoid disposition among OF collection devices with authentic OF samples after controlled cannabis administration. Fourteen frequent (≥4 times per week) and 10 occasional (less than twice a week) adult cannabis smokers smoked one 6.8% ∆(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) cigarette ad libitum over 10 min. OF was collected with the StatSure Saliva Sampler, Oral-Eze, and Draeger DrugTest 5000 test cassette before and up to 30 h after cannabis smoking. Test cassettes were analyzed within 15 min and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry cannabinoid results were obtained within 24 h. Cannabinoid concentrations with the StatSure and Oral-Eze devices were compared and times of last cannabinoid detection (t(last)) and DrugTest 5000 test performance were assessed for different cannabinoid cutoffs. 11-nor-9-Carboxy-THC (THCCOOH) and cannabinol concentrations were significantly higher in Oral-Eze samples than in Stat-Sure samples. DrugTest 5000 t(last) for a positive cannabinoid test were median (range) 12 h (4-24 h) and 21 h (1- ≥ 30 h) for occasional and frequent smokers, respectively. Detection windows in screening and confirmatory tests were usually shorter for occasional than for frequent smokers, especially when including THCCOOH ≥20 ng L(-1) in confirmation criteria. No differences in t(last) were observed between collection devices, except for THC ≥2 μg L(-1). We thus report significantly different THCCOOH and cannabinol, but not THC, concentrations between OF collection devices, which may affect OF data interpretation. The DrugTest 5000 on-site device had high diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and efficiency for cannabinoids.

Current knowledge on cannabinoids in oral fluid

Oral fluid (OF) is a new biological matrix for clinical and forensic drug testing, offering non-invasive and directly observable sample collection reducing adulteration potential, ease of multiple sample collections, lower biohazard risk during collection, recent exposure identification, and stronger correlation with blood than urine concentrations. Because cannabinoids are usually the most prevalent analytes in illicit drug testing, application of OF drug testing requires sufficient scientific data to support sensitive and specific OF cannabinoid detection. This review presents current knowledge of OF cannabinoids, evaluating pharmacokinetic properties, detection windows, and correlation with other biological matrices and impairment from field applications and controlled drug administration studies. In addition, onsite screening technologies, confirmatory analytical methods, drug stability, and effects of sample collection procedure, adulterants, and passive environmental exposure are reviewed. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol OF concentrations could be >1000 µg/L shortly after smoking, whereas minor cannabinoids are detected at 10-fold and metabolites at 1000-fold lower concentrations. OF research over the past decade demonstrated that appropriate interpretation of test results requires a comprehensive understanding of distinct elimination profiles and detection windows for different cannabinoids, which are influenced by administration route, dose, and drug use history. Thus, each drug testing program should establish cut-off criteria, collection/analysis procedures, and storage conditions tailored to its purposes. Building a scientific basis for OF testing is ongoing, with continuing OF cannabinoids research on passive environmental exposure, drug use history, donor physiological conditions, and oral cavity metabolism needed to better understand mechanisms of cannabinoid OF disposition and expand OF drug testing applicability. Published 2013. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Noninvasive double confirmation of cocaine abuse

A double confirmation procedure, based on the combined application of Ion Mobility Spectrometry (IMS) and Infrared Spectroscopy (IR), has been developed for the noninvasive unambiguous identification of cocaine consume. The use of nasal mucus as a biological specimen for cocaine abuse confirmation has been proposed as an alternative to the use of blood and urine due to its noninvasive character and the presence of the parent compound instead of its metabolites. Sampling conditions, interferences caused by cutting agents and other substances, and limits of identification (LOI) and confirmation (LOC) have been deeply evaluated. The procedure combines the high sensitivity of the IMS to identify positive samples with the high selectivity of the IR procedure to confirm positive results. Thus, the proposed two tier method has been applied to the detection and identification of cocaine in the nasal mucus of different individuals, consumers, and nonconsumers, providing results comparable with those obtained by a reference procedure.

A field test of substance use screening devices as part of routine drunk-driving spot detection operating procedures in South Africa

This pilot study aimed to test four substance use screening devices developed in Germany under local South African conditions and assess their utility for detecting driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) as part of the standard roadblock operations of local law enforcement agencies. The devices were used to screen a sample of motorists in the Gauteng and Western Cape provinces. The motorists were diverted for screening at roadblocks at the discretion of the law enforcement agencies involved, as per their standard operating procedures. Fieldworkers also administered a questionnaire that described the screening procedure, as well as information about vehicles, demographic information about the motorists and their attitudes to the screening process during testing. Motorists tested positive for breath alcohol in 28% of the 261 cases tested. Oral fluid was screened for drugs as per the standard calibrated cut-offs of all four devices. There were 14 cases where the under-influence drivers tested positive for alcohol and drugs simultaneously, but 14% of the 269 drivers drug-screened tested positive for drugs only. After alcohol, amphetamine, methamphetamine and cocaine were the most common drugs of impairment detected. The results suggest that under normal enforcement procedures only 76% of drivers impaired by alcohol and other drugs would have been detected. In more than 70% of cases the tests were administered within 5 min and this is likely to improve with more regular use. It was clear that the pilot screening process meets global testing standards. Although use of the screening devices alone would not serve as a basis for prosecution and provisions would need to be made for the confirmation of results through laboratory testing, rollout of this screening process would improve operational efficiency in at least two ways. Firstly, the accuracy of the tests will substantially decrease confirmatory test loads. Secondly, laboratory drug testing can be restricted to specific drugs rather than a full panel analysis, which will reduce testing costs significantly.

Field testing of the Alere DDS2 Mobile Test System for drugs in oral fluid

A preliminary field evaluation of a second-generation handheld oral fluid testing device, the Alere DDS2 Mobile Test System (DDS2), is described. As part of a larger study, drivers were randomly stopped at various locations across California (in 2012) and asked to submit voluntarily to a questionnaire regarding their drug and alcohol use, a breath alcohol test and collection of oral fluid with the Quantisal device. The Quantisal-collected oral fluid samples were sent for laboratory-based analyses. At one location, 50 drivers were asked to submit an additional oral fluid sample using the DDS2 collection device; these samples were analyzed by using the DDS2 mobile test system. Thirty-eight donors (76%) provided specimens that were successfully run on the mobile system; in 12 cases (24%), the device failed to provide a valid result. Thirty-two of the 38 collected samples were negative for all drugs; five were positive for tetrahydrocannabinol and one was positive for methamphetamine using the mobile device. These results corresponded exactly with the laboratory-based results from the Quantisal oral fluid collection.