Evaluation of commercially available methamphetamine presumptive tests for site contamination

References

• Thoi F, Scherer DJ, Kaye DM, et al. Methamphetamine-Associated cardiomyopathy: addressing the clinical challenges. Heart Lung Circ. 2022;31(5):1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.hlc.2021.12.015.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armoon B, Fleury M-J, Griffiths MD, et al. Emergency department use, hospitalization, and their sociodemographic determinants among patients with Substance-Related disorders: a worldwide systematic review and Meta-Analysis. Subst Use Misuse. 2023;58(3):331–345. doi: 10.1080/10826084.2022.2161313.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perez FA, Blythe S, Wouldes T, et al. Prenatal methamphetamine—impact on the mother and child—a review. Addiction. 2022;117(1):250–260. doi: 10.1111/add.15509.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pro G, Hayes C, Montgomery BEE, et al. Demographic and geographic shifts in the preferred route of methamphetamine administration among treatment cases in the US, 2010–2019. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2022;237:109535. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2022.109535.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright J, Edwards J, Walker S. Exposures associated with clandestine methamphetamine drug laboratories in Australia. Rev Environ Health. 2016;31(3):329–352. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2016-0017.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cherney A, O’Reilly J, Grabosky P. Networks and meta-regulation: strategies aimed at governing illicit synthetic drugs. Polic Soc. 2006;16(4):370–385. doi: 10.1080/10439460600973693.
   Google Scholar
• Martyny JW, Arbuckle SL, McCammon C, et al. Chemical exposures associated with clandestine methamphetamine laboratories. Denver, CO: National Jewish Medical and Research Center; 2004. www.nationaljewish.org/pdf/chemical_exposures pdf
   Google Scholar
• Bitter JL. The persistence of illicit drug smoke residues and their recovery from common household surfaces. Drug Test Anal. 2017;9(4):603–612. doi: 10.1002/dta.1993.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martyny JW, Arbuckle SL, McCammon CS, et al. Methamphetamine contamination on environmental surfaces caused by simulated smoking of methamphetamine. J Chem Health Saf. 2008;15(5):25–31. doi: 10.1016/j.jchas.2008.02.004.
   Google Scholar
• Van Dyke M, Erb N, Arbuckle S, et al. A 24-Hour study to investigate persistent chemical exposures associated with clandestine methamphetamine laboratories. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2009;6(2):82–89. doi: 10.1080/15459620802590116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright J, Walker GS, Ross KE. Contamination of homes with methamphetamine: is wipe sampling adequate to determine risk? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(19):3568. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16193568.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright J, Kenneally M, Ross K, et al. Environmental methamphetamine exposures and health effects in 25 case studies. Toxics. 2020;8(3):61. doi: 10.3390/toxics8030061.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright J, Symons B, Angell J, et al. Current practices underestimate environmental exposures to methamphetamine: inhalation exposures are important. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2020;31(1):45–52. doi: 10.1038/s41370-020-00260-x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindenmayer DB, Laurance WF, Franklin JF. Global decline in large old trees. Science. 2012;338(6112):1305–1306. doi: 10.1126/science.1231070.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poppendieck D, Morrison G, Corsi R. Desorption of a methamphetamine surrogate from wallboard under remediation conditions. Atmos Environ. 2015;106:477–484. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.09.073.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thrasher DL, Von Derau K, Burgess J. Health effects from reported exposure to methamphetamine labs: a poison center-based study. J Med Toxicol. 2009;5(4):200–204. doi: 10.1007/bf03178267.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Salocks CB. Assessment of children’s exposure to surface methamphetamine residues in former clandestine methamphetamine labs, and identification of a risk-based cleanup standard for surface methamphetamine contamination. 2009
   Google Scholar
• Ciesielski AL, Wagner JR, Alexander-Scott M, et al. Surface contamination generated by "One-Pot" methamphetamine production. J Chem Health Saf. 2020;28(1):49–54. doi: 10.1021/acs.chas.0c00078.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Australian Government. Clandestine drug laboratory remediation guidelines. 2011
   Google Scholar
• Australian Crime Commission. Clandestine drug laboratory remediation guidelines. 2011
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn EJ, Walker GS, Whiley H, et al. Household contamination with methamphetamine: knowledge and uncertainties. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(23):4676. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16234676.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Standards New Zealand. NZS 8510:2017 testing and decontamination of methamphetamine contaminated properties. Wellington, New Zealand: standards New Zealand; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Washington State Deparment of Health. Guidelines for environmental sampling at illegal drug manufacturing sites. 2005
   Google Scholar
• Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division. Cleanup of clandestine methamphetamine labs guidance document. 2003
   Google Scholar
• Michigan Department of Community Health. Cleanup of clandestine drug laboratory guidance. 2007
   Google Scholar
• Rusnak SM, Ginsberg G, Toal B. Guidelines for the cleanup of Connecticut methamphetamine labs. 2006
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Housing and Urban Development. Regulation. Of methamphetamine contamination in rental housing. 2022
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn EJ, Walker GS, Whiley H, et al. Overview of current practices in the methamphetamine testing and decontamination industry: an Australian case study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(17):8917. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18178917.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koczula KM, Gallotta A. Lateral flow assays. Essays Biochem. 2016;60(1):111–120. doi: 10.1042/ebc20150012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sajid M, Kawde A-N, Daud M. Designs, formats and applications of lateral flow assay: a literature review. J Saudi Chem Soc. 2015;19(6):689–705. doi: 10.1016/j.jscs.2014.09.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serrano KA, Martyny JW, Kofford S, et al. Decontamination of clothing and building materials associated with the clandestine production of methamphetamine. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2012;9(3):185–197. doi: 10.1080/15459624.2012.660096.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madireddy SB, Bodeddula VR, Mansani SK, et al. Wipe sampling of amphetamine-type stimulants and recreational drugs on selected household surfaces with analysis by ultra-performance liquid chromatography quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry. J Hazard Mater. 2013;254–255(1016/j.jhazmat.2013.03.012):46–56. 10doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.03.012.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health [NIOSH]. 9111 Methamphetamine on wipes by liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Wright J. Australian voluntary code of practice assessment, remediation and validation: former clandestine drug laboratories and other methamphetamine contaminated properties. 2019
   Google Scholar
• Pedgley O, Şener B, Lilley D, et al. Embracing material surface imperfections in product design. 2018;12(3):21–33.
   Google Scholar
• Judi HM, Genasan D, Jenal R. Quality control implementation in manufacturing companies: motivating factors and challenges. London, UK: INTECH Open Access Publisher; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Urbaniak M, Zimon D. Operational processes that the manufacturing companies expect to be improved by suppliers. IJQR. 2022;16(3):891–904. doi: 10.24874/IJQR16.03-16.
   Google Scholar
• Ueki Y. Customer pressure, customer–manufacturer–supplier relationships, and quality control performance. J Business Res. 2016;69(6):2233–2238. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.035.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saitman A, Park H-D, Fitzgerald RL. False-Positive interferences of common urine drug screen immunoassays: a review. J Anal Toxicol. 2014;38(7):387–396. doi: 10.1093/jat/bku075.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marin SJ, Doyle K, Chang A, et al. One hundred False-Positive amphetamine specimens characterized by liquid chromatography time-of-Flight mass spectrometry. J Anal Toxicol. 2016;40(1):37–42. 01 doi: 10.1093/jat/bkv101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Nicuola J, Jones R, Levine B, et al. Evaluation of six commercial amphetamine and methamphetamine immunoassays for Cross-Reactivity to phenylpropanolamine and ephedrine in urine. *J Anal Toxicol. 1992;16(4):211–213. doi: 10.1093/jat/16.4.211.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pesce A, Rosenthal M, West R, et al. An evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry versus immunoassay drug testing in pain patients. Pain Physician. 2010;13(3):273.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kricka LJ. Interferences in immunoassay—still a threat. Clin Chem. 2000;46(8):1037–1038. doi: 10.1093/clinchem/46.8.1037.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsen A. MedNZ Limited - Assessment of screening test methodology for methamphetamine contamination. 2018
   Google Scholar
• Abdullah AF, Miskelly GM. Recoveries of trace pseudoephedrine and methamphetamine residues from impermeable household surfaces: implications for sampling methods used during remediation of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories. Talanta. 2010;81(1-2):455–461. 101016/j.talanta.2009.12.025 doi: 10.1016/j.talanta.2009.12.025.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar