MENU
Deutsch English
Start
Marker-System
Service
Literatur
MPU
Kontakt
Start
Marker-System
Service
Literatur
MPU
Kontakt

Wei­te­re Stu­di­en

Uri­ne-ki­ne­tics of Low Mole­cu­lar Po­ly­ethy­le­ne Gly­cols Fol­lo­wing an Oral Cap­su­le In­ge­s­ti­on
Baum et al., 15(4): 1-6, 2017; Ar­ti­cle no.​JALSI.38741

Re­sults: PEG could be cle­ar­ly de­tec­ted in all sub­jects af­ter 60 mi­nu­tes, re­gard­less of drin­king vo­lu­me, al­co­hol con­sump­ti­on, or uri­ne flow. At the la­test 22 hours fol­lo­wing in­ta­ke, the mar­ker re­at­tai­ned ba­se­li­ne va­lu­es in all par­tici­pants.

Dis­cus­sion: PEG cap­su­les can be used as safe me­ans for uri­ne mar­king in a time in­ter­val of at least 60 mi­nu­tes bet­ween oral in­ta­ke and uri­ne sam­pling is re­spec­ted. Fur­ther­mo­re, using dif­fe­rent mar­ker com­bi­na­ti­ons, this me­thod can be ap­plied day by day in rou­ti­ne uri­ne drug tes­ting wit­hout in­ter­fe­rence with pre­vious­ly ta­ken mar­kers.

Abs­tract

Stu­dy

The in­flu­ence of Foods and Be­ver­a­ges on Po­ly­ethy­le­ne Gly­col Mar­ker De­tec­tion in Uri­ne
Ein­wäch­ter et al., J Ad­dict Res Ther 2019, 10:1

Main re­sults: Both the ca­lo­ric and the flu­id in­ta­ke si­gni­fi­cant­ly in­flu­en­ced PEG mar­ker con­cen­tra­ti­ons in uri­ne. The 40 mins re­sorp­ti­on pha­se led to a de­tec­tion ra­te bet­ween 81% and 100%. All sub­jects we­re tested po­si­ti­ve for PEG mar­kers fol­lo­wing the 60 mins re­sorp­ti­on pha­se.

Con­clu­si­on: The mar­ker de­tec­tion fol­lo­wing a PEG mar­ker con­tai­ning cap­su­le is a va­lid me­thod, when in­di­vi­du­al th­res­holds and a mar­ker re­sorp­ti­on pha­se of 60 mins are ta­ken in­to ac­count. That holds true in­de­pen­dent­ly of the time in­ter­val bet­ween me­al and mar­ker in­ta­ke, me­al com­po­si­ti­on, and be­ver­age vo­lu­me.

Abs­tract

Stu­dy

Pro­cess Re­lia­bi­li­ty and Psy­cho­lo­gi­cal Stress in Uri­ne Sam­ple Collec­tion for Drug Tes­ting: A Pi­lot Stu­dy
Baum et al., 19(1): 1-12, 2018; Ar­ti­cle no.​JALSI.44565

Re­sults: Even within a gi­ven in­sti­tu­ti­on, su­per­vi­si­on is per­for­med in­di­vi­dual­ly dif­fe­rent with re­spect to di­s­tan­ce to the ge­ni­tal, di­rect or in­di­rect view, and ac­cu­ra­cy. Su­per­vi­si­on evo­kes se­rious psy­cho­lo­gi­cal stress to both pa­ti­ent and staff. The mar­ker sys­tem re­qui­res less working hours.

Con­clu­si­on: From the point of view of the ac­ting su­per­vi­sors, the mar­ker sys­tem im­proves drug scree­nings at all le­vels. Em­ployees have mo­re time to car­ry out their ac­tu­al du­ties, safe­ty with re­spect to ma­ni­pu­la­ti­ons in­crea­ses, and the psy­cho­lo­gi­cal stress is si­gni­fi­cant­ly re­du­ced on both si­des.

Abs­tract

Stu­dy

Adulteration of Urine Samples, Discovery and Mitigation
Huppertz et al. 16(4): 1-8, 2018; Article no.JALSI.40427

Re­sults: The ef­fect of oxi­dants, such as chro­ma­te, hy­po­ch­lo­ri­te, per­oxi­de, ni­tri­te and per­chlo­ric acid de­pends stron­gly on the pH-va­lue of the sam­ple. In unt­rea­ted uri­ne, their ef­fect is ra­ther low, on­ly in com­bi­na­ti­on with stron­gly aci­dic pH-va­lu­es the­se che­mi­cals de­ve­lop their ma­xi­mum im­pact. In ad­di­ti­on to the oxi­dants, the ana­ly­sis can al­so be dis­tur­bed by strong ba­ses, such as cau­stic so­da, strong acid or de­ter­gents (dish­wa­shing li­quid). The­se can be de­tec­ted quick­ly by their sup­pres­si­on of the in­ter­nal stan­dard si­gnals. Fur­ther in­ves­ti­ga­ti­on has shown that the ef­fect of the adul­ter­ants can be re­du­ced by ad­ding buf­fer so­lu­ti­ons and re­du­cing agents to the sam­ple im­me­dia­te­ly af­ter uri­ne de­li­ve­ry.

Con­clu­si­on: This stu­dy shows that the­re are just a few ma­ni­pu­lants sho­wing a si­gni­fi­cant in­flu­ence on the GCMS re­sult and they all can be de­tec­ted by the selec­ted tests on ma­ni­pu­lants.

Abs­tract

Stu­dy

Ru­ma GmbH

Wil­helm-Schlombs-Al­lee 1
50858 Köln
Deutsch­land

Te­le­fon: +49 221/ 3990 11 0
Fax: +49 221/ 3990 11 20

in­fo@​mar­ker-​test.​de
www.​mar­ker-​test.​de