Adulteration of Urine by “Urine Luck”

Abstract

Background: In vitro adulterants are used to invalidate assays for urine drugs of abuse. The present study examined the effect of pyridinium chlorochromate (PCC) found in the product “Urine Luck”. Methods: PCC was prepared and added to positive urine controls at concentrations of 0, 10, 50, and 100 g/L. The controls were assayed for methamphetamine, benzoylecgonine (BE), codeine and morphine, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and phencyclidine (PCP) with the Emit II (Syva) and Abuscreen Online (Roche) immunoassays, and by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). Two tests were also developed to detect PCC in urine: a spot test to detect chromate ions using 10 g/L 1,5-diphenylcarbazide as the indicator, and a GC/MS assay for pyridine. We tested 150 samples submitted for routine urinalysis, compliance, and workplace drug testing for PCC, using these assays. Results: Response rates decreased at 100 g/L PCC for all Emit II drug assays and for the Abuscreen morphine and THC assays. In contrast, the Abuscreen amphetamine assay produced apparently higher results, and no effect was seen on the results for BE or PCP. The PCC did not affect the GC/MS recovery of methamphetamine, BE, PCP, or their deuterated internal standards, but decreased GC/MS recovery of the opiates at both intermediate (50 g/L) and high (100 g/L) PCC concentrations and apparent concentrations of THC and THC-d3 at all PCC concentrations. Two of 50 samples submitted for workplace drug testing under chain-of-custody conditions were positive for PCC, whereas none of the remaining 100 specimens submitted for routine urinalysis or compliance drug testing were positive. Conclusions: PCC is an effective adulterant for urine drug testing of THC and opiates. Identification of PCC use can be accomplished with use of a spot test for the oxidant.

Determining the effects of adulterants on drug detection via enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay and adulterant tests strips

“…[13][14][15] Previous studies related to adulterated drug samples have been carried out on other immunoassay techniques including RIA, 5 cloned enzyme donor immunoassay, 16,17 enzyme immunoassay, 18 FPIA, 7 and EMIT. [19][20][21] In a separate study, eye drops, liquid bleach, and vinegar were used to adulterate urine samples at a 10% v/v concentration and analyzed using FPIA, demonstrating that these adulterants significantly interfered with the accurate detection of cannabinoids. 14 Eye drops were also observed to create false negative results for THC assays by EMIT.…”

“…Active ingredients of commercial products ) in order to ascertain the level of adulteration required to significantly reduce the detectable concentrations of drugs and their metabolites by ELISA. Previous work with other immunoassay techniques have shown that adulterants will have some extent of interference with either the antibody coated well plate or the drug itself 5,13,[16][17][18][19][20][21]. …”

Can synthetic urine replace authentic urine to “beat” workplace drug testing?

“…Due to the possibility of adverse actions, service members may attempt to "beat" the drug test. Previous practices include excessive hydration hours before the specimen collection, specimen adulteration, [2][3][4][5][6][7] and specimen substitution using a prosthetic penis such as the "Whizzinator." 8 In April 2017, Diagnostic Laboratory Services (DLS) on Oahu, Hawaii, believed that the decline in methamphetamine positive specimens received and tested in DLS was due to the substitution of urine with synthetic urine (SU).…”

Suitability evaluation of new endogenous biomarkers for the identification of nitrite‐based urine adulteration in mass spectrometry methods

“…Use of surrogates, such as artificial urine, in vivo adulteration through consumption of large volumes of liquids consequently diluting urinary drug concentrations, and in vitro adulteration through addition of liquids or chemicals after urine collection. 11 Systematic studies on the prevalence of adulteration attempts are scarce and it can be assumed that such attempts are detected only in rare cases. 1,12 With recent intentions in several US states to ban artificial urine products, chemical adulteration attempts might become of higher interest.…”