Confirmation by LC–MS of drugs in oral fluid obtained from roadside testing

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Marta Concheiro ; Ana de Castro ; Ó ; scar Quintela ; Angelines Cruz ; Manuel Ló ; pez-Rivadulla
• 关键词：LC– ; MS ; Oral fluid ; Drugs of abuse ; On-site tests ; Roadside test
• 刊名：Forensic Science International
• 出版年：2007
• 出版时间：6 August 2007
• 年：2007
• 卷：170
• 期：2-3
• 页码：156-162
• 全文大小：542 K

文摘

The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of two current on-site oral fluid (OF) drug detection devices (OraLab and Dräger), as part of the Spanish participation in the Roadside Testing Assessment Project (ROSITA Project). The study was done in collaboration with the Spanish Traffic Police, in Galicia (NW Spain), during 2004 and 2005. A total of 468 drivers selected at the police controls agreed to participate through informed consent. In addition, saliva samples were collected and sent to the laboratory to confirm the on-site results. For this purpose, two different analytical liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (LC–MS) methods were used to detect 11 drugs or metabolites in a 300 μL sample. Simultaneous analysis of morphine, 6-acetylmorphine, amphetamine, methamphetamine, MDA, MDMA, MDEA, MBDB, cocaine and benzoylecgonine was carried out using 100 μL of oral fluid, after an automated solid phase extraction. A different LC–MS method was performed to detect Δ⁹-THC in 200 μL of oral fluid using liquid–liquid extraction with hexane at pH 6. Both methods were fully validated, including linearity (1–250 ng/mL, 2–250 ng/mL) recovery (>50 % ), within-day and between-day precision (CV < 15 % ), accuracy (mean relative error < 15 % ), limit of detection (0.5 and 1 ng/mL), quantitation (1 and 2 ng/mL) and matrix effect. All of the positive cases and a random selection of 30 % of the negatives were analyzed for confirmation analysis. Good results (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value and negative predictive value > 90 % ) were obtained for cocaine and opiates by OraLab, and for cocaine by Dräger. However, the results for the other compounds could be improved for both detection devices. Differences in the ease of use and in the interpretation mode (visual or instrumental) were observed.