4.4 Article

Stability of 11 prevalent synthetic cannabinoids in authentic neat oral fluid samples: glass versus polypropylene containers at different temperatures

Journal

DRUG TESTING AND ANALYSIS
Volume 5, Issue 7, Pages 602-606

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/dta.1497

Keywords

Spice'; synthetic cannabinoids; neat oral fluid; stability; glass; polypropylene; container

Funding

  1. EU Commission [JUST/2011/DPIP/AG/3597]
  2. German Ministry of Health
  3. City of Frankfurt

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although synthetic cannabinoids have been intensively investigated in recent years and oral fluid testing is becoming increasingly popular in suspected driving under the influence of drugs cases, only scarce data on their stability in authentic neat oral fluid (nOF) samples are yet available. However, especially for these new psychoactive drugs, investigations focusing on stability issues are necessary as inappropriate storage conditions may lead to considerable analytical problems. Since it has been shown for (9)-tetrahydrocannabinol that adsorption to plastic surfaces may lead to considerable drug loss, we aimed to evaluate whether adsorption also has to be taken into account for synthetic cannabinoids in nOF samples. In this paper, the results of investigations on the recovery of 11 prevalent synthetic cannabinoids from authentic nOF samples stored over 72h in RapidEASE (high quality borosilicate glass) and Sciteck Saliva Split Collector (polypropylene) tubes at 4 and 25 degrees C are presented. Our findings clearly demonstrate that lipophilic synthetic cannabinoids present in nOF samples adsorb to the surface of polypropylene containers when stored at room temperature, leading to considerable drug loss. Hence, when using polypropylene tubes, samples should be shipped cooled in order to avoid a substantial decrease of the analyte concentration during transportation. Copyright (c) 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available