The recovery of illicit drugs from oral fluid sampling devices

Fenproporex and Amphetamine Pharmacokinetics in Oral Fluid After Controlled Oral Administration of Fenproporex

“…The interindividual accuracy (related to the nominal 1-mL volume) and precision [relative standard deviation (RSD)] of oral fluid volumes were 110.5% and 11.5%, respectively. The RSD was twice that described by Dickson et al 40 for Quantisal (RSD 5.09%); however, those authors conducted the experiment immersing the collection pads into a beaker containing oral fluid of a single supplier, without covering the variations due to in vivo collection of different individuals. When we look at the collected oral fluid volumes, ranging from 0.812 to 1.429 mL and determine the error in using the nominal Quantisal dilution of 1:4 to calculate concentrations, we obtain maximum errors of 214.7% and +29.1% in drug concentrations.…”

A simple and reliable procedure for the determination of psychoactive drugs in oral fluid by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry

“…spiting), because fluid stimulation modifies the pH gradient between this fluid and plasma (the pH of oral fluid becomes more alkaline) and thus drug diffusion is reduced [11,12]. Another aspect to be considered is the recovery of drugs from collection devices that may depend on their components, but also on how oral fluid is preserved and stored until analysis [13].…”

Cozart®RapiScan Oral Fluid Drug Testing System validation by GC-MS/MS analysis

“…However, the random sampling of 19 negatives cases of the immunoassay-based test showed a 31.6% of false negatives, which would raise the total number of positive cases to cannabinoids. The difficulty associated with the detection of the different metabolites of cannabis is well-known [19,20], and this fact should be taken into account in order to approve the immunoassay-based OF test for routine roadside tests.…”