Workplace drug testing, different matrices different objectives


Autoria(s): Tsanaclis, Lolita M.; Wicks, John F. C.; Chasin, Alice A. M.
Contribuinte(s)

UNIVERSIDADE DE SÃO PAULO

Data(s)

30/10/2013

30/10/2013

02/08/2013

Resumo

Drug testing is used by employers to detect drug use by employees or job candidates. It can identify recent use of alcohol, prescription drugs, and illicit drugs as a screening tool for potential health and safety and performance issues. Urine is the most commonly used sample for illicit drugs. It detects the use of a drug within the last few days and as such is evidence of recent use; but a positive test does not necessarily mean that the individual was impaired at the time of the test. Abstention from use for three days will often produce a negative test result. Analysis of hair provides a much longer window of detection, typically 1 to 3 months. Hence the likelihood of a falsely negative test using hair is very much less than with a urine test. Conversely, a negative hair test is a substantially stronger indicator of a non-drug user than a negative urine test. Oral fluid (saliva) is also easy to collect. Drugs remain in oral fluid for a similar time as in blood. The method is a good way of detecting current use and is more likely to reflect current impairment. It offers promise as a test in post-accident, for cause, and on-duty situations. Studies have shown that within the same industrial settings, hair testing can detect twice as many drug users as urine testing. Copyright (C) 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Identificador

DRUG TESTING AND ANALYSIS, MALDEN, v. 4, n. 2, Special Issue, supl. 4, Part 1, pp. 83-88, FEB, 2012

1942-7603

http://www.producao.usp.br/handle/BDPI/36684

10.1002/dta.399

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/dta.399

Idioma(s)

eng

Publicador

WILEY-BLACKWELL

MALDEN

Relação

DRUG TESTING AND ANALYSIS

Direitos

closedAccess

Copyright WILEY-BLACKWELL

Palavras-Chave #DRUG TESTING #HAIR #URINE #SALIVA #HAIR ANALYSIS #ORAL FLUID #ABUSE #PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Tipo

article

original article

publishedVersion