skip navigation

CrimeSolutions.gov

Add your conference to our Justice Events calendar

PUBLICATIONS

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection.
To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the NCJRS Abstracts Database.

How to Obtain Documents
 
NCJ Number: NCJ 244233   Add to Shopping cart   Find in a Library
Title: Comprehensive Forensic Toxicological Analysis of Designer Drugs
Author(s): Anthony P. DeCaprio ; W. Lee Hearn ; Madeleine J. Swortwood
Date Published: 10/2013
Page Count: 53
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice
US Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
United States of America
Grant Number: 2011-DN-BX-K559
Sale Source: NCJRS Photocopy Services
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
United States of America
Document: PDF 
Type: Report (Study/Research) ; Research (Applied/Empirical) ; Report (Grant Sponsored)
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: In order to determine how designer drugs may or may not react in presumptive screens with pre-existing commercial immunoassays, this project determined the cross-reactivity of 30 designer drugs with 16 ELIISA reagents from four different companies; and two EMIT reagents were evaluated in order to determine the cross-reactivity of these same compounds in urine.
Abstract: Cross-reactivity toward most of the tested drugs was greater than 4 percent in assays that targeted amphetamine or methamphetamine. Compounds such as MDA, MDMA, ethylamphetamine, and alpha-methyltryptamine demonstrated cross-reactivities in the range of 30-250 percent, but data were consistent with both manufacturers’ inserts and published literature. Some assays - such as BZP, cotinine, PCP, mephentermine, methylphenidate, ketamine, and MDPV - demonstrated almost no cross-reactivity toward any of the analytes evaluated. When tested against the Randox Mephedrone/Methcahtinone kit, cathinone derivatives showed cross-reactivity at concentrations as low as 150 ng/ml. The Mephedrone/Methcathinone kit was not a suitable assay for detecting other more traditional amphetamine-derived compounds, but may be more appropriate for screening post-mortem specimens for “bath salts” when putrefactive amines may be present. All other assays demonstrated essentially no cross-reactivity toward any of the analytes assessed. Given these results, there is clearly a need for additional broad-range screening techniques that can be applied when analyzing biological specimens for drugs of abuse, specifically the more recent designer drugs. 16 tables, 4 figures, a 42-item bibliography, and information on research dissemination
Main Term(s): Drug analysis
Index Term(s): Drug testing ; Comparative analysis ; Designer drugs ; NIJ final report
   
  To cite this abstract, use the following link:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=266314

* A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's web site is provided.