• Hayes, Eugene D.
• Flegel, Ronald
• Krauss, Shannon

Abstract

Learning statement:<br/>The attendants of this presentation are expected to learn about the current state of synthetic urines and urine adulterants and how they impact workplace drug testing. <br/>Impact statement:<br/>This presentation will impact the forensic community by informing laboratory directors and other decision makers about the current state of synthetic urines and urine adulterants, allowing them to better interpret data from urinary testing and to evaluate their methodology. <br/>Abstract 300-600 words (current 468):<br/>Urine drug testing has been the standard in both military, federally mandated and non-regulated workplace drug testing for more than 30 years. However, as the impacts of a positive drug test often are severe for the donor, there has always been an incentive to “beat the test”. In the last decade, a number of commercial manufacturers have specialized in products designed to subvert urine drug testing, including synthetic urines that replace the sample, adulterants that interfere with testing methods, and various contraptions to hide the former from the collector. To identify the use of these products, the collector measures the temperature of urine specimens at the time of collection and the laboratories employ various specimen validity tests (SVT), as discussed below.<br/>An online market survey conducted in December 2020 identified 32 synthetic urine products and three urine adulteration products. Based on the survey, 16 synthetic urine products and all three urine adulterants were purchased and analyzed in-house and by five HHS-certified reference laboratories. Adulterants were added to negative urine and urine containing amphetamine, methamphetamine, benzoylecgonine, codeine, morphine, PCP, THC-COOH and synthetic opioids at concentrations approximately two times the federally mandated cutoff levels. In-house analyses included visual inspection and specimen validity testing (SVT) using dip sticks. Laboratory testing was conducted on ten synthetic urine products, all three adulterants and control urine samples. Included were, sample validity testing (pH, oxidants, creatinine, and specific gravity), immunoassay screening and confirmation ofspiked drug concentrations.<br/>Visual inspection revealed that most products were professionally packaged, indicating the size and maturity of the industry. Also, both the synthetic urines and the adulterated urine samples would be difficult to distinguish from authentic urine specimens based on their appearance. Except for one sample with low specific gravity, all synthetic urine samples passed mandated laboratory SVT tests for creatinine, specific gravity, oxidants and pH. However, specific gravity is normally not tested on specimens with normal creatinine levels.<br/>The first adulterant was clearly identified by general oxidant tests, in line with manufacturer warnings that it was detectable. It also interfered with the internal standard of one confirmation assay. The second adulterant was undetected by SVT testing, but did not affect any drug test results. The last adulterant produced two negative screening results in one laboratory, and lowered the quantitative value of some drug analytes. However, the adulterated sample was identified as invalid by immunoassay supression, loss of internal standards in confirmatory testing, and the iodate SVT test.<br/>In summary, most synthetic urines would have been difficult to identify at the laboratory using current testing protocols, but several laboratories are working on novel markers and methods to identify biomarkers?It is harder to subvert a urine drug test with an adulterant as the only adulterant that was not identified by SVT testing did not affect the drug test results.<br/>

Topics

• impedance spectroscopy