Repository logo
  • English
  • Srpski (lat)
  • Српски
Log In
Have you forgotten your password?
  1. Home
  2. Browse by Author

Browsing by Author "Dordevic, Snezana (8370499000)"

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Results Per Page
  • Sort Options
  • Loading...
    Thumbnail Image
    Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    consent settings
    Publication
    Effect of urine adulterants on commercial drug abuse screening test strip results
    (2020)
    Rajšić, Ivana (57217475920)
    ;
    Javorac, Dragana (57213622549)
    ;
    Tatović, Simona (57211798039)
    ;
    Repić, Aleksandra (57212208218)
    ;
    Dukic-Cosić, Danijela (26639264900)
    ;
    Dordevic, Snezana (8370499000)
    ;
    Lukić, Vera (55743833000)
    ;
    Bulat, Zorica (24066576300)
    Immunochromatographic strips for urine drug screening tests (UDSTs) are common and very suitable for drug abuse monitoring, but are also highly susceptible to adulterants kept in the household, which can significantly alter test results. The aim of this study was to see how some of these common adulterants affect UDST results in practice and whether they can be detected by sample validity tests with pH and URIT 11G test strips. To this end we added household chemicals (acids, alkalis, oxidizing agents, surfactants, and miscellaneous substances) to urine samples positive for amphetamine, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), tetrahydrocannabinol, heroin, cocaine, or benzodiazepines (diazepam or alprazolam) and tested them with one-component immunochromatographic UDST strips. The UDST for cocaine resisted adulteration the most, while the cannabis test produced the most false negative results. The most potent adulterant that barely changed the physiological properties of urine specimens and therefore escaped adulteration detection was vinegar. Besides lemon juice, it produced the most false negative test results. In conclusion, some urine adulterants, such as vinegar, could pass urine specimen validity test and remain undetected by laboratory testing. Our findings raise concern about this issue of preventing urine tampering and call for better control at sampling, privacy concerns notwithstanding, and better sample validity tests. © 2020 Ivana Rajšić et al., published by Sciendo 2020.
  • Loading...
    Thumbnail Image
    Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    consent settings
    Publication
    Effect of urine adulterants on commercial drug abuse screening test strip results
    (2020)
    Rajšić, Ivana (57217475920)
    ;
    Javorac, Dragana (57213622549)
    ;
    Tatović, Simona (57211798039)
    ;
    Repić, Aleksandra (57212208218)
    ;
    Dukic-Cosić, Danijela (26639264900)
    ;
    Dordevic, Snezana (8370499000)
    ;
    Lukić, Vera (55743833000)
    ;
    Bulat, Zorica (24066576300)
    Immunochromatographic strips for urine drug screening tests (UDSTs) are common and very suitable for drug abuse monitoring, but are also highly susceptible to adulterants kept in the household, which can significantly alter test results. The aim of this study was to see how some of these common adulterants affect UDST results in practice and whether they can be detected by sample validity tests with pH and URIT 11G test strips. To this end we added household chemicals (acids, alkalis, oxidizing agents, surfactants, and miscellaneous substances) to urine samples positive for amphetamine, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), tetrahydrocannabinol, heroin, cocaine, or benzodiazepines (diazepam or alprazolam) and tested them with one-component immunochromatographic UDST strips. The UDST for cocaine resisted adulteration the most, while the cannabis test produced the most false negative results. The most potent adulterant that barely changed the physiological properties of urine specimens and therefore escaped adulteration detection was vinegar. Besides lemon juice, it produced the most false negative test results. In conclusion, some urine adulterants, such as vinegar, could pass urine specimen validity test and remain undetected by laboratory testing. Our findings raise concern about this issue of preventing urine tampering and call for better control at sampling, privacy concerns notwithstanding, and better sample validity tests. © 2020 Ivana Rajšić et al., published by Sciendo 2020.

Built with DSpace-CRIS software - Extension maintained and optimized by 4Science

  • Privacy policy
  • End User Agreement
  • Send Feedback