Norwegian
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Catalan
Czech
Danish
Deutsch
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Français
Greek
Haitian Creole
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Български
中文(简体)
中文(繁體)
Journal of Analytical Toxicology 2000-Oct

Detection of cannabis in oral fluid (saliva) and forehead wipes (sweat) from impaired drivers.

Bare registrerte brukere kan oversette artikler
Logg inn Registrer deg
Koblingen er lagret på utklippstavlen
P Kintz
V Cirimele
B Ludes

Nøkkelord

Abstrakt

Saliva and sweat have been presented as two alternative matrices for the establishment of drug abuse. The noninvasive collection of a saliva or sweat sample, which is relatively easy to perform and can be achieved under close supervision, is one of the most important benefits in a driving-under-the-influence situation. Moreover, the presence of certain analytes in saliva is a better indication of recent use than when the drug is detected in urine, so there is a higher probability that the subject is experiencing pharmacological effects at the time of sampling. We developed an original procedure using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry to test for delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive ingredient of cannabis, in oral fluid and forehead wipes, collected with Sarstedt Salivettes and cosmetic pads, respectively. Blood, urine, oral fluid, and forehead wipes were simultaneously collected from 198 injured drivers admitted to an Emergency Hospital in Strasbourg, France. Of the 22 subjects positive for 11-nor-9-carboxy-THC (THCCOOH) in urine, 14 and 16 were positive for THC in oral fluid (1 to 103 ng/Salivette) and forehead wipe (4 to 152 ng/pad), respectively. 11-Hydroxy-THC and THCCOOH were not detected in these body fluids. Two main limitations of saliva and sweat are apparent: the amount of matrix collected is smaller when compared to urine, and the levels of drugs are higher in urine than in saliva and sweat. A current limitation in the use of these specimens for roadside testing is the absence of a suitable immunoassay that detects the parent compound in sufficiently low concentrations.

Bli med på
facebooksiden vår

Den mest komplette databasen med medisinske urter støttet av vitenskap

  • Fungerer på 55 språk
  • Urtekurer støttet av vitenskap
  • Urtegjenkjenning etter bilde
  • Interaktivt GPS-kart - merk urter på stedet (kommer snart)
  • Les vitenskapelige publikasjoner relatert til søket ditt
  • Søk medisinske urter etter deres effekter
  • Organiser dine interesser og hold deg oppdatert med nyheter, kliniske studier og patenter

Skriv inn et symptom eller en sykdom og les om urter som kan hjelpe, skriv en urt og se sykdommer og symptomer den brukes mot.
* All informasjon er basert på publisert vitenskapelig forskning

Google Play badgeApp Store badge