article · Zagazig Journal of Forensic Medicine
Background: Adulteration, a process that involves manipulating a urine specimen with chemical adulterants to obtain a false negative test result, is one of the biggest problems with urine drug testing. Objective: Assessment of effects of some adulterants on urinary drug testing of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), comparing effects on two screening methods immunoassay and Thin layer chromatography (TLC). Methods: urine samples first were test positive for THC by GC/MS in the toxicology lab at Beni-Suef University. THC positive urine samples were then adulterated by water, HCL bleach, 5% acetic acid, and Tetrahydrozoline eye drops at different concentrations. Finally urine samples were reevaluated for THC using 2 immunoassays, and TLC also, urinary PH, specific gravity, and creatinine and nitrites were assessed then. Results: The PH of urine significantly decreased after being adulterated with 5% acetic acid at concentrations of 10 and 40, highly significant rise in the PH following 40% Tetrahydrozoline, 10% and 40% HCl bleach and after 300% water dilution. Neither 5% acetic acid nor Tetrahydrozoline at concentration 10 had any impact on urine creatinine levels. HCL-based bleach at concentration 40 and twofold water dilution caused the largest, most significant drop in specific gravity. Except for HCL-based bleach, which included nitrates in 100% of cases at a concentration of 40 and in 76.7% of cases at a concentration of 10, no nitrates were detected in urine samples before the addition of adulterants. Overall accuracy is the best for VIVA E except in HCL bleach at 40% and water dilution by 300%, TLC is better. These results showed that VIVA E overall accuracy is better than other methods comparing to GC/MS as gold standard for THC before adding adulterants. Conclusions: HCl bleach caused the most remarkable changed to urine parameters. VIVA E overall accuracy is better than other methods comparing to GC/MS.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.21608/zjfm.2023.207429.1148
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.