Skip to main content

Urinary Adulterants and Drugs of Abuse Testing

  • Chapter
Handbook of Drug Monitoring Methods
  • 2799 Accesses

Summary

Persons abusing drugs attempt to adulterate urine specimens in order to escape detection. Household chemicals such as bleach, table salt, laundry detergent, toilet bowl cleaner, vinegar, lemon juice and Visine eye drops are used for adulterating urine specimens. Most of these adulterants except Visine eye drops can be detected by routine specimen integrity tests (creatinine, pH, temperature and specific gravity). However, certain adulterants such as Klear, Whizzies, Urine Luck and Stealth cannot be detected by using routine specimen integrity testing. These adulterants can successfully mask drug testing if the concentrations of certain abused drugs are moderate. Several spot tests have been described in the literature to detect the presence of such adulterants in urine, and recently, urine dipsticks are commercially available (AdultaCheck 4, AdultaCheck 6, Intect 7 and MASK Ultrascreen) for detecting the presence of such adulterants along with creatinine, pH and specific gravity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Paul B, Jacobs A. Spectrophotometric detection of iodide and chromic (III) in urine after oxidation to iodine and chromate. J Anal Toxicol 2005; 29: 658–663.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Burrows DL, Nicolaides A, Rice PJ, Duforc M, et al. Papain: a novel urine adulterant.jtyJ Anal Toxicol 2005; 29: 275–295.

    Google Scholar 

  3. George S, Braithwaite RA. An investigation into the extent of possible dilution of specimens received for urinary drugs of abuse screening. Addiction 1995; 90: 967–970.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Needleman SD, Porvaznik M. Creatinine analysis in single collection urine specimens. J Forensic Sci 1992; 37: 1125–1133.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Beck O, Bohlin M, Bragd F, Bragd J, Greitz O. Adulteration of urine drug testing-an exaggerated cause of concern article in Swedish. Lakartidningen 2000; 97: 703–706.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Fraser AD, Zamecnik J. Impact of lowering the screening and confirmation cutoff values for urine drug testing based on dilution indicators. Ther Drug Monit 2003; 25: 723–727.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Soldin SJ, Morales AJ, D’Angelo LJ, Bogema SC, Hicks JC. The importance of lowering the cut-off concentrations of urine screening and confirmatory tests for benzoylecgonine/cocaine Abstract Clin Chem 1991; 37: 993.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Luzzi VI, Saunders AN, Koenig JW, Turk J, et al. Analytical performance of immunoassays for drugs of abuse below established cutoff values. Clin Chem 2004; 50: 717–722.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Edgell K, Caplan YH, Glass LR, Cook JD. The defined HHS/DOT substituted urine criteria validated through controlled hydration study. J Anal Toxicol 2002; 26: 419–423.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Barbanel CS, Winkelman JW, Fischer GA, King AJ. Confirmation of the department of transportation criteria for a substituted urine specimen. J Occup Environ Med 2002; 44: 407–416.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cook JD, Hannon MW, Vo T, Caplan YH. Evaluation of freezing point depression for classifying random urine specimens defined as substituted under HHS/DOT criteria. J Anal Toxicol 2002; 26: 424–429.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Cone EJ, Lange R, Darwin WD. In vivo adulteration: excess fluid ingestion cause false negative marijuana and cocaine urine test results. J Anal Toxicol 1998; 22: 460–473.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Mikkelsen SL, Ash KO. Adulterants causing false negative in illicit drug testing. Clin Chem 1988; 34: 2333–2336.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. McNamara CE, Perry NB, Follett JM, Parmenter GA, Douglas JA. A new glucosyl feruloyl quinic acid as a potential marker for roots and rhizomes of goldenseal, Hydrastis canadenis. J Nat Prod 2004; 67: 1818–1822.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Deventer K, Delbeke FT, Roels K, Van Ecnoo P. Screening for 18 diuretics and probenecid in doping analysis by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Biomed Chromatogr 2002; 16: 529–535.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Warner A. Interference of household chemicals in immunoassay methods for drugs of abuse. Clin Chem 1989; 35: 648–651.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Uebel RA, Wium CA. Toxicological screening for drugs of abuse in samples adulterated with household chemicals. S Afr Med J 2002; 92: 547–549.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Schwarzhoff, R, Cody, JT. The effects of adulterating agents on FPIA analysis of urine for drugs of abuse. J Anal Toxicol 1993; 17: 14–17.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Baiker C, Serrano L, Lindner B. Hypochlorite adulteration of urine causing decreased concentration of delta-9-THC-COOH by GC/MS. J Anal Toxicol 1994; 18: 101–103.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Stolk LM, Scheijen JL. Urine adulteration with denture cleaning ts Letter. J Anal Toxicol 1997; 21: 403.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Pearson SD, Ash KO, Urry FM. Mechanism of false negative urine cannabinoid immunoassay screens by Visine eye drops. Clin Chem 1989; 35: 636–638.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Fogerson R, Schoendorfer D, Fay J, Spiehler V. Qualitative detection of opiates in sweat by EIAS and GC–MS. J Anal Toxicol 1997; 21: 451–458.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Rojsitthisak P, Wichitnithad W, Pipitharome O, Sanphanya K, Thanawattanawanich P. Simple HPLC determination of benzalkonium chloride in ophthalmic formulations containing antazoline and tetrahydrozoline. PDA J Pharm Sci Technol 2005; 59: 323–327.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Wu A, Bristol B, Sexton K, Cassella-McLane G, et al. Adulteration of urine by Urine Luck. Clin Chem 1999; 45: 1051–1057.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Paul BD, Martin KK, Maguilo J, Smith ML. Effects of pyridinium chlorochromate adulterant (urine luck) on testing of drugs of abuse and a method for quantitative detection of chromium (VI) in urine. J Anal Toxicol 2000; 24: 233–237.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Dasgupta A, Wahed A, Wells A. Rapid spot tests for detecting the presence of adulterants in urine specimens submitted for drug testing. Am J Clin Pathol 2002; 117: 325–329.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Freslew KE, Hagardorn AN, Roberts TA. Capillary ion electrophoresis of endogenous anions and anionic adulterants in human urine. J Forensic Sci 2001; 46: 615–626.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ferslew KE, Nicolaides AN, Robert TA. Determination of chromate adulteration of human urine by automated colorimetric and capillary ion electrophoretic analyses. J Anal Toxicol 2003; 27: 36–39.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Paul BD. Six spectrometric methods for detection of oxidants in urine: implication in differentiation of normal and adulterated urine. J Anal Toxicol 2004; 28: 599–608.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. ElSohly MA, Feng S, Kopycki WJ, Murphy TP, et al. A procedure to overcome interferences caused by adulterant “Klear” in the GC-MS analysis of 11-nor-Δ9-THC-9-COOH. J Anal Toxicol 1997; 20: 240–242.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Tsai SC, ElSohly MA, Dubrovsky T, Twarowska B, et al. Determination of five abused drugs in nitrite-adulterated urine by immunoassay and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. J Anal Toxicol 1998; 22: 474–480.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Tsai LS, ElSohly MA, Tsai SF, Murphy TO, et al. Investigation of nitrite adulteration on the immunoassay and GC-MS analysis of cannabinoids in urine specimens J Anal Toxicol 2000; 24: 708–714.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Urry F, Komaromy-Hiller G, Staley B, Crockett D, et al. Nitrite adulteration of workplace drug testing specimens: sources and associated concentrations of nitrite and distinction between natural sources and adulteration. J Anal Toxicol 1998; 22: 89–95.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Singh J, Elberlind JA, Hemphill DG, Holmstrom J. The measurement of nitrite in adulterated urine samples by high performance ion chromatography. J Anal Toxicol 1999; 23: 137–140.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Kinkennon AE, Black DL, Robert TA, Stout PR. Analysis of nitrite in adulterated urine samples by capillary electrophoresis. J Forensic Sci 2004; 49: 1094–1100.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Cody JT, Valtier S. Effects of stealth adulteration on immunoassay testing for drugs of abuse. J Anal Toxicol 2001; 25: 466–470.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Cody JT, Valtier S, Kuhlman J. Analysis of morphine and codeine in samples adulterated with Stealth. J Anal Toxicol 2001; 25: 572–575.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Valtier S, Cody JT. A procedure for the detection of Stealth adulterant in urine samples. Clin Lab Sci 15 2002; 111-115.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. George S, Braithwaite RA. The effect of glutaraldehyde adulteration of urine specimens on Syva EMIT II drugs of abuse assay. J Anal Toxicol 1996; 20: 195–196.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Wu AH, Forte E, Casella G, Sun K, et al. CEDIA for screening drugs of abuse in urine and the effect of adulterants. J Forensci Sci 1995; 40: 614–618.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Goldberger BA, Caplan YH. Effect of glutaraldehyde (UrinAid) on detection of abused drugs in urine by immunoassay [Letter]. Clin Chem 1994; 40: 1605–1606.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Wu A, Schmalz J, Bennett W. Identification of Urin-Aid adulterated urine specimens by fluorometric analysis [Letter]. Clin Chem 1994; 40: 845–846.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Cody JT, Schwarzhoff RH. Impact of adulterants on RIA analysis of urine for drugs of abuse. J Anal Toxicol 1989; 13: 277–284.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Lewis SA, Lewis LA, Tuinman A. Potassium nitrite reaction to 11-nor-delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carboxylic acid in urine in relation to the drug screening analysis. J Forensic Sci 1999; 44: 951–955.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Paul BD, Jacobs A. Effects of oxidizing adulterants on detection of 11-nor-Δ9-THC-9-carboxylic acid in urine. J Anal Toxicol 2002; 26: 460–463.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Jones JT, Esposito FM. An assay evaluation of the methylene blue method for the detection of anionic surfactants in urine. J Anal Toxicol 2000; 24: 323–327.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Peace MR, Tarnai LD. Performance evaluation of three on-site adulteration detection devices for urine specimens. J Anal Toxicol 2002; 26: 464–470.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. King EJ. Performance of AdultaCheck 4 test stripes for the detection of adulteration at the point of collection of urine specimens used for drugs of abuse testing. J Anal Toxicol 1999; 23: 72.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Dasgupta A, Chughtai O, Hannah C, Davis B, Wells A. Comparison of spot tests with AdultaCheck 6 and Intect 7 urine test strips for detecting the presence of adulterants in urine specimens. Clin Chem Acta 2004; 348: 19–25.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Kadehjian L. Legal issues in oral fluid testing [Review]. Forensic Sci Int 2005; 150: 151–160.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Humana Press Inc

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dasgupta, A. (2008). Urinary Adulterants and Drugs of Abuse Testing. In: Dasgupta, A. (eds) Handbook of Drug Monitoring Methods. Humana Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59745-031-7_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59745-031-7_17

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-58829-780-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-59745-031-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics