PROCEEDINGS PAPER
Analytical Techniques for Drug Detection in Oral Fluid
Pirjo Lillsunde, PhD
Abstract: Analytical techniques for detection of drugs in oral fluid
(OF) are reviewed with emphasis on applications used in European
Union (EU) roadside testing projects. Oral fluid is readily accessible
and collectible. It has become an interesting material because no
medical personnel are needed for sampling. This matrix is especially
applicable for preliminary drug testing in driving under the influence
controls and for monitoring illicit drug use in drug treatment. Oral
fluid is also an increasingly used specimen in epidemiologic studies
and in workplace drug testing. Drugs are present at lower levels in OF
than in urine. The window of detection of drugs in OF reflects the
corresponding window in blood, suggesting OF as a specimen of
choice for roadside testing. Saliva/blood ratios vary from drug to drug,
from person to person, and even intraindividually making therapeutic
drug monitoring in OF challenging. Several sensitive methods for drug
testing in OF have been developed during the last years.
Key Words: drugs, oral fluid, analytical techniques
(Ther Drug Monit 2008;30:181–187)
INTRODUCTION
Recent developments in analytical techniques and
methods have enabled simultaneous determination of several
drug classes in small volumes of oral fluid.1–4 Oral fluid (OF)
is a promising biologic matrix for drug analysis and an
alternative specimen to blood and urine.5 Oral fluid sample
collection is simple and noninvasive and can be done in close
supervision. Opportunity for sample adulteration and sub-
stitution are minimal in comparison to urine specimens.
Screening tests in OFs can be performed without medical
personnel, eg, by police officers.6 The European roadside
testing study (ROSITA) concluded that OF was the preferred
specimen for monitoring drug use of drivers on the roadside.
Oral fluid may also be useful for some applications in
therapeutic drug monitoring, which so far is usually performed
with plasma samples obtained by venipuncture. In the future,
certain therapeutic drugs may be monitored in OF by patients
themselves at home using rapid tests. A number of reviews
have been published on analysis of drugs in oral fluid.7–13
The role of OF drug testing is expanding in driving
under the influence and workplace drug testing areas as well as
in therapeutic drug monitoring and in monitoring illicit drug
Received for publication September 13, 2007; accepted December 6, 2007.
From the National Public Health Institute, Drug Research Unit, Helsinki,
Finland.
Address for correspondence: Pirjo Lillsunde, National Public Health Institute,
Drug Research Unit, Mannerheimintie 166, 00300 Helsinki, Finland
(e-mail: pirjo.lillsunde@ktl.fi).
Copyright Ó 2008 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Ther Drug Monit  Volume 30, Number 2, April 2008
use in drug treatment. Oral fluid is also an increasingly used
specimen in pharmacokinetic and epidemiologic studies.7
The drug concentrations in OF depend on the latest
dose, the route of administration, the salivary pH, physico-
chemical properties of the drug, and the degree of plasma
protein binding. Oral fluid concentration reflects the detection
window of these drugs in blood and free drug levels in plasma,
although the reflection is not simple and can be affected by,
for example, salivary pH and salivary flow.14 Nevertheless, a
relationship between behavior/impairment and OF drug con-
centration has been suggested, making OF an interesting tool,
especially for roadside control of drugs.15 Oral fluid seems
especially well suited for detecting recent drug use on-site.
However, saliva/plasma (S/P) ratios may vary considerably
depending on the substance, and large interindividual differ-
ences in the measured S/P ratio have been reported.16–18 For
amphetamines, cocaine, and heroine metabolites, the S/P ratio
is greater than 1. The amphetamine OF/B ratio was reported to
be especially high in cases in which amphetamine in relatively
high concentrations was measured in OF and blood of drivers
who were suspected of driving under the influence of drugs.
The detection time window for which amphetamines was
found was also longer for OF than for blood when the cutoff
points 20 ng/mL in whole blood and 25 ng/mL in OF were
used. The results indicated that the limits of detection for
amphetamine in OF should be higher than for whole blood
for the window of detection to be comparable.18 For benzo-
diazepines, the S/P ratio is very low. It seems that, at least in
suspected driving under the influence cases, tetrahydrocan-
nabinol (THC) in OF can be derived mainly from contamination
of the OF cavity during cannabis smoking and therefore THC in
OF has been measured in a wide concentration range.19,20
Heroin use can often be detected in OF better than in
blood because 6-acetylmorphine/morphine ratios in OF are
higher than unity.21 Enzymatic oral fluid test devices have been
used to investigate the role of alcohol in a forensic praxis.22
Oral fluid alcohol content is a good indicator of plasma alcohol
concentration (S/P = 1) if the sample is taken 20 minutes after
ingestion to allow for absorption and distribution, preventing
oral contamination, but drugs are a more complicated issue.
In addition to rapid and reliable methods, use of OF in
therapeutic drug monitoring requires a repeatable relationship
between OF and plasma concentration. A narrow margin
between the drug’s therapeutic and toxic effects is needed and
low intra- and intersubject variability.7 Therefore, not all
frequently monitored substances may be suitable candidates in
therapeutic oral fluid monitoring. Commonly used antiepi-
leptics phenytoin, carbamazepine, primidone, ethosuximide,
levetiracetam, topiramate, and lamotrigine were considered
good candidates for therapeutic oral fluid monitoring.7
181
Lillsunde
Oral fluid could be used in monitoring of antimicrobials
isoniazid, ciprofloxacin, and gentamicin as well.7
Commercially available screening devices allow on-site
testing. Immunologic methods such as the enzyme-linked
immunosorbent assay are commonly used for oral fluid
analysis. Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS) is
also commonly used, but many laboratories have recently
developed liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (LC-
MS) or liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry
(LC-MS-MS) methods for analysis of drugs in oral fluid.
European Union Roadside Testing Assessment
ÔROSITA 1 and 2Õ: Projects and European Union
Driving Under Influence of Drugs
(DRUID) Project
There have been two European Union–(USA) projects
(ROSITA) concerning on-site testing in road traffic control
since 1998.6,21 The purpose of these projects was to evaluate
on-site testing devices. In ROSITA-1, both the available urine
and OF testing devices were evaluated.21,23 The survey was
conducted in collaboration with the various national police
officers on the road. Laboratories confirmed the drug findings
in OF by using the same, most often GC-MS, methods as for
blood analysis. Development of LC-MS methods in the
consortium started. A clear demand for OF on-site testing
arose from the police side. Therefore, the ROSITA-2 project
(2003–2005) concentrated solely on the evaluation of usability
and analytical reliability of on-site OF (saliva) drug testing
devices.
On-Site Tests
The aim of the ROSITA-2 project was to evaluate the
available on-site devices for the detection of drugs in OF at the
roadside or in a police station. For confirmation analysis, an
additional oral fluid sample was taken with the Intercept device
(OraSure Technologies, Inc., Bethlehem, PA, USA). Also, a
blood sample was taken. Nine on-site devices were evaluated:
Drugwipe (Securetec, Brunnthal, Germany), Lifepoint Impact
(San Francisco, CA, USA), OraLab (Varian, Lake Forest, CA,
USA), OraLine (Sun Biomedical Laboratories, Inc., Black-
wood, NJ, USA), Oral Stat device (American Bio Medica
Corporation, New York, NY, USA), Oratect II (Branan
Medical Corporation, Irvine, CA, USA), RapiScan (Cozart
Bioscience Ltd., Oxfordshire, UK), Saliva Screen 5 (Ultimed
Products GmbH, Ahrensburg, Germany), and Uplink/Drug
Test (Orasure Technologies Inc., Bethlehem, PA, USA exclu-
sively for Dräger Safety AG & Co, Lübeck, Germany).6
In the ROSITA-1 project, the criteria of sensitivity and
specificity (greater than 90%) and accuracy (greater than 95%)
was proposed. None of the devices tested in ROSITA-2 met
these criteria. However, some of the devices detected a few of
the substance classes well. Sensitivity, specificity, and accu-
racy for amphetamine screening with Drugwipe calculated
based on OF confirmation results were 95.5%, 92.9%, and
95.3%, respectively (128 true-positives from 148 analyzed by
OF), whereas the sensitivity for cannabis was low (52.5% ).22,24
A significant variation existed between drug classes. Theoret-
ically, both cocaine and opiates should be more easily detected
in OF because of generally higher concentrations compared
182
Ther Drug Monit  Volume 30, Number 2, April 2008
with D9-THC and benzodiazepines. Sensitivity for amphet-
amines, opiates, and cocaine (S/P ratios 1) were generally better
than for THC and benzodiazepines.
In the ROSITA projects, the importance of size,
practicability, rapidity, and portability of the testing device
was emphasized from the operational point of view. In addition
to thin lines in the test display and sometimes difficult
interpretation of the test result, practical problems had been
noted, eg, with using cold water for testing and/or test devices
in winter. Furthermore, the education of police officers was
important. Most of the police officers who performed the tests
saw the OF on-site test devices as valuable tools for helping in
the identification and confirming of initial suspicion of drug
use. The police officers with more experience of using on-site
devices were generally more satisfied with the device.
In a few countries, legislation already allows the use of
OF for screening and/or confirmation in suspected driving
under influence of drugs cases. Although at the end of the
ROSITA-2 project, no device was considered reliable enough
to be recommended for roadside screening of drivers, on-site
tests are used routinely in some countries by police officers. In
Australia, random roadside tests for drugs are allowed and
drivers are tested by Drugwipe (Securetec) and RapiScan
(Cozart Bioscience Ltd.). If both devices give a positive drug
result, an OF sample is sent to the laboratory for confirmation
analysis. The police in Finland started using Drugwipe in 2003
as an on-site test in cases in which police officers already
suspect drug use. Amphetamine is the most commonly found
illicit drug among Finnish drivers. The police are satisfied with
the ability of the device to detect amphetamine users. Since
then, the number of amphetamine findings has more than
doubled among driving under the influence suspected
drivers.25
Oral Fluid Sample Collection, Storage, and
Pretreatment for Confirmatory Analysis
Oral fluid collection is a critical step in the validity of
the OF drug testing process. Oral fluid can be collected by
adsorbent swabs, by spitting, draining, or suction. The flow
can be stimulated mechanically (chewing gum, parafilm,
Teflon, rubber band) or chemically (citric acid). Although
stimulation allows collection in a shorter time, changing the
pH of OF can affect the concentrations of drugs and meta-
bolites and affect the S/P ratio of drugs. Citric acid stimulation
of OF, for example, produced a fivefold decrease of cocaine,
benzoylecgonine (BE), and ecgonine methyl ester (EME) in
OF. It can also cause interference in some immunoassays.
Absorption of highly lipophilic substances may occur when
using parafilm or other stimulation devices, leading to
decreases in the amount of measured drugs.7
Oral fluid specimen collectors are valuable tools for
collecting OF. Collecting a valid and representative OF is
a challenge. If drugs are administered orally or smoked, OF
may be contaminated and elevated concentrations of drugs
may be found. These elevated concentrations affect adversely
S/P and S/B ratios, which make reliable interpretation of OF
results difficult.26 The preservation buffer solution of devices
may cause long-term problems in GC-MS analysis and poor
q 2008 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Ther Drug Monit  Volume 30, Number 2, April 2008 Drug Detection in Oral Fluid

precision and accuracy in the form of ion suppression (see
subsequently).
Oral fluid samples should be stored at +4°C and be
analyzed as soon as possible. If longer storage is needed,
samples should be stored at –20°C. Freezing lowers the
viscosity and after thawing, samples can be easily centrifuged.
For pretreatment, both liquid–liquid and solid-phase extraction
is used.
The variability of the recoveries of different substances
from the different collection devices was not well known at
the time of the ROSITA-2 project. All the ROSITA partners
agreed to use the Intercept collector, although the drug
stability in the buffer and absorption of drugs in the cotton roll
of the specimen collector was not known. The average amount
collected with the device was low, only 224 mL (minimum, 0;
maximum, 795 mL) in roadside conditions. In laboratory
conditions, however, much higher volumes were collected
(500 to 700 mL).24 There was a wide variability in the volumes
of OF collected. Collection of OF was much more difficult,
for example, from amphetamine abusers, whose oral fluid
secretion is lowered and who experienced dry mouth.5
Oral fluid was diluted with buffer in the Intercept device,
which complicated the quantitative determination, especially
because the amount of buffer solution was not constant.
Furthermore, some nonvolatile components in the Intercept
buffer coextracted with the analytes, increasing the back-
ground interference in GC-MS analysis and decreasing the
column life.1
A study27 was done find out the best choice of OF
collection device for the European Union project, DRUID. The
criteria were that the device should be suitable for roadside
collection (fast, easy to use), provide enough sample for
toxicologic analysis, be able to measure sample volume, and
enable good recovery and stability of drugs and medicinal
drugs. The tested analytes were amphetamine, MDMA, THC,
cocaine, morphine, codeine, diazepam, alprazolam (all 1000
ng/mL in OF), and ethanol (0.2% in OF). Analytes were quan-
tified from OF or OF buffer solution by GC-MS (all except for
ethanol) and gas-chromatography flame ionization detector
(GC-FID) (ethanol). Collected OF volume was tested with test
persons (n = 6). Collection time of different collectors was
recorded simultaneously by the test persons and also user
comments were requested. The summary of the results are
presented in Table 1.
The ordinary plastic tube did well in the experiments,
but it was considered somewhat messy to collect OF by
spitting. Other collection devices with no buffer were not good
enough in terms of recovery or stability. The Greiner was
considered to be too complicated to use at the roadside. The
Statsure collector gave the best results for recovery (greater
than 80% for all substances) and good results for stability.
It was quick to use (less than 2-minute collection time) and
received good user feedback. The buffer solutions seem to
contain macromolecules that coextract with the analytes in the
extraction procedure and cause long-term problems in the GC-
MS systems.1 Therefore, the buffer solutions from the devices,
including Statsure, contaminated the GC liner significantly.
The only exception was the Greiner that provided a clean
background in the chromatograms. None of the collection
devices was thus perfect, but the Statsure was chosen as the OF
collection device of the DRUID project.27 Buffer macro-
molecules seemed to coextract with target drugs and caused
interfering background in chromatograms both after solid-
phase extraction as well as after liquid–liquid extraction.1,27
Screening Tests Used by Laboratories
The analytical approaches for OF testing of laboratories
in ROSITA project were immunologic, GC-MS, and LC-MS
(-MS) methods. Some laboratories used immunologic screen-
ing like the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay before
confirmation, but most laboratories did screening and con-
firmation simultaneously by chromatographic methods. Table 2

TABLE 1. Summary of Evaluation of Collection Devices27

Parameter Best In Between Worst
Collection time (test persons) Quantisal Oratube Greiner
persons) Statsure Intercept Cozart
Best: 0–2 minutes OralCol Salicule
In between: 2–4 minutes Salivette Tube
Worst: .4 minutes
Recovery Statsure Quantisal Cozart
Best: .80% Intercept Oracol
In between: THC ,80% Greiner Oratube
Worst: THC and any other(s) ,80% Salicule Tube Salivette
Stability (28 days storage) Cozart Intercept Quantisal
Best: ,15% units decrease Statsure Greiner
In between: 15–29% units decrease Tube
Worst: .30% units decrease Salicule Oracol
Contamination of the analysis equipment Devices without buffer Greiner Statsure
(gas chromatography–mass spectrometry)
Cozart
Intercept
Quantisal

q 2008 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 183

Lillsunde Ther Drug Monit  Volume 30, Number 2, April 2008

analyze approximately 30 substances in approximately 0.5 mL

TABLE 2. Confirmation Techniques for Drugs in Oral Fluid
of OF. The common cutoff values in OF and whole blood were
in ROSITA-26
set in the European Union, DRUID project. Also, the Sub-
Belgium LC-MS-MS
stance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration (SAM-
Finland GC-MS
SHA) has proposed cutoff values for oral fluid (Table 4).
Germany GC-MS
Norway LC-MS-MS
Spain LC-MS Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry
USA/Florida LC-MS and GC-MS and Gas Chromatography–Mass
USA/Utah (Washington) GC-MS and LC-MS-MS Spectrometry–Mass Spectrometry
LC-MS-MS, liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry–mass spectrometry; The drugs have to be extracted from oral fluid and, in
GC-MS, gas chromatography–mass spectrometry; LC-MS, liquid chromatography–mass most cases, then to be derivatized to make them volatile before
spectrometry.
introducing them into the GC-MS instrument. Molecules are
ionized, commonly using electron ionization (EI) at 70 eV.
Mass-to-charge ratio and abundances of fragments are created
and a unique fingerprint of ion fragments is detected for
lists the laboratory methods used in ROSITA-2.24 Advantages compound identification.30,31 There are numerous GC-MS
of microtiter plate enzyme immunoassay are that low-sample methods published for analyzing drugs in oral fluids.28 More
volumes are enough for analysis (usually 25 mL), no sample stable and less extensive fragments are produced by chemical
pretreatments are needed, the methods are sensitive, and the ionization.32,33 EI produces more ions and better selectivity but
antibody crossreacts for the parent drug.28,29 poorer sensitivity than negative ion chemical ionization.
For confirmation analysis, GC-MS is usually operated in
Confirmation Analysis selected ion monitoring mode and deuterated internal stand-
To evaluate the on-site testing devices in the ROSITA ards are recommended. Three ion and two ion ratios are
projects, reliable confirmation methods were needed. New normally followed, but in chemical ionization mode, there may
equipment, especially LC-MS-(MS) instruments, was pur- not always be three ions available for selection.
chased and massive development work started in the The benefits of GC-MS techniques are robustness and
participating laboratories. The common list of target sub- inexpensiveness. Different instruments produce comparable
stances and cutoff values (Table 3) were set in a meeting in fragmentation and spectra. Reliable libraries are thus available,
Strasbourg 2003. For several substances, the target concen- which is an advantage in comparison to LC-MS. Drug
trations were far below the cutoff concentrations that the concentrations, eg, for THC and benzodiazepine, are much
laboratories had used for analyzing drugs in blood. In addition lower in OF than those in blood. More sensitive methods may
to the lower cutoffs than before, the laboratories had to aim to be needed. Detection limits can be lowered by using
techniques called Dean Switch (Agilent Technologies, Santa
Clara, CA). By connecting this switching valve to the GC-MS,
TABLE 3. Cutoffs (ng/mL) for ROSITA-2 participating many interfering substances can be eliminated and the signal-
Laboratories6 to-noise ratio can be increased.31 Lower detection limits can be
Substance Blood Oral Fluid achieved also by using MS-MS.34,35
Increased sample throughput and decreased costs of the
Amphetamine 20 25
method can be achieved also by using fast gas chromatog-
Methamphetamine 20 25
raphy. Chromatographic run times of approximately 20 minutes
MDMA 20 25
by conventional GC are shown to be reduced approximately
MDA 20 25
5 minutes by fast GC ystems.36
MDEA 20 25
Kankaanpää et al developed and fully validated a rapid
Cocaine 20 8
GC-EI assay for the simultaneous determination of 15
Benzoylecgonine 20 8
amphetamine-type stimulants and related drugs using only
Morphine 10 20
100 mL of OF.4 Extraction and derivatization were performed
Codeine 10 20
in a single step using buffer and toluene with internal standard
THC 1 2
(methylmexiletine) and heptafluorobutyric anhydride (HFBA)
THCCOOH 5
as an extraction-derivatization reagent. The mixture was cen-
11-OH-THC 1
Diazepam 50 5
trifuged and injected into a GC-MS. The run time in GC-MS
for 15 stimulants was 15 minutes.
Nordiazepam 50 5
Gunnar et al1 presented a multicomponent procedure for
Temazepam 50 5
determination of 30 various types of drugs in oral fluid using
7-aminoflunitrazepam 1 2
250 mL of sample. Solid phase extraction was used and three
Bromazepam 10 5
different derivatization procedures in three fractions were
Lorazepam 10 5
used. Overview of OF sample pretreatment is presented in
Clonazepam 5 5
Figure 1. A technician can work up approximately 30 samples
Zopiclone/zolpidem 10
per day by this method.

184 q 2008 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Ther Drug Monit  Volume 30, Number 2, April 2008 Drug Detection in Oral Fluid

TABLE 4. Confirmatory Tests’ Cutoff Values for Drugs in Undiluted Oral Fluid Proposed by European Union
(EU) DRUID Project and Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA)47
Whole Blood EU/DRUID Oral Fluid EU/DRUID Oral Fluid Cutoffs
Substance Cutoff (ng/mL) Cutoff (ng/mL) (ng/mL) Proposed by SAMSHA
Ethanol 0.1 g/L 0.1 g/L
Morphine 10 20 40
Amphetamine 20 25 50
MDMA 20 25 50
MDA 20 25 50
Cocaine 10 10 8
THC 1 1 2
THCCOOH 5
Diazepam 20 5
Alprazolam 10 1
Clonazepam 10 1
Benzoylecgonine 50 10
Codeine 10 20 40
6-acetylmorphine 10 5 4
Methamphetamine 20 25 50
Methadone 10 20
Oxazepam 50 5
Nordiazepam 20 1
Zopiclone 10 10
MDEA 20 25
Lorazepam 10 1
Flunitrazepam 2 1
Zolpidem 20 10

Liquid Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry assay sensitivity, reproducibility, and linearity in quantitative

Some of the drugs are present in low concentrations in
OF and are thus difficult to analyze by GC-MS methods. The
advantage of LC-MS-MS is better sensitivity than that of GC-
MS. Therefore, a smaller volume of sample is needed for
analysis, which is important for analyzing drugs in OF. Also,
substances of low extraction recovery can be detected. In
addition, thermally labile and polar compounds can be
detected by LC.
LC-MS methods are beneficial, especially because of
simple sample pretreatment without complicated sample
cleanup and derivatization steps. Oiestadt et al used simple
and rapid liquid–liquid extraction (ethylacetate:hexane 4:1)
for screening 32 substances in OF.3 Although the extraction
recovery of benzoylecgonine was as low as 0.2%, it was
successfully screened and detected with LC–tandem mass
spectrometry. Analysis time in LC-MS-MS was approximately
20 minutes for 32 substances.
After a nonlaborious protein precipitation procedure,
significant ion suppression was detected.37 Interfering coelut-
ing residual matrix components can influence the ionization of
the target compound even to the extent that the compound will
not be detected. It was concluded that to overcome matrix
suppression, more exhaustive sample preparation and in-
creased chromatographic separation was needed. Ion suppres-
sion was also noticed after using OF collection devices.2 The
buffer of collection devices contained macromolecules, which
partially coextracted with the drug molecules and caused ion
suppression. Ion suppression or enhancement can influence
LC-MS(-MS).38 Therefore, the matrix effect should be studied.
For identification of unknown substances, in-house
libraries are used and those libraries are applicable only on
a single apparatus or apparatus type. The most commonly used
ionization method in LC-MS is electrospray ionization (ESI)
for drug analysis in OF. The alternate ionization (interface) is
atmospheric pressure chemical ionization. Ion suppression and
enhancement problems have been reported especially with
ESI, but problems can occur also with atmospheric pressure
chemical ionization.39 When OF was pretreated with four
sample preparation procedures/direct injection, dilution,
protein precipitation, solid-phase extraction, and analyzed
by LC-ESI-MS-MS and LC–atmospheric pressure chemical
ionization–MS-MS, both ionization types showed matrix
effect, but ESI was more vulnerable. Preconcentration of OF
was needed and acetonitrile protein precipitation was found to
provide sufficient preconcentration and protein removal.40
Modern instrumental methods in forensic toxicology
have been reviewed recently by several authors.31,37–39,41,42
Samyn et al reviewed extensively the techniques and methods
used for determination of drugs of abuse in oral fluid.30 Several
LC-MS(-MS) methods have been developed for analysis of
drugs in oral fluids.43–45
Validation
Integral components for method validation are the
signal-to-noise ratio, limit of detection, lower limit of quantifi-
cation, upper limit of quantification, accuracy, precision, and

q 2008 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 185

Lillsunde
FIGURE 1. An example of sample preparation for gas
chromatography–mass spectrometry analysis.1
interference.46 In LC-MS methods, ion suppression and
enhancement should be studied.
CONCLUSIONS
Oral fluid is a preferred specimen for preliminary drug
testing on the roadside. The purpose of testing may be driving
under the influence of drugs controls performed by police
officers or epidemiologic studies in which prevalence of
different drugs in drivers in the traffic flow is studied. Sensitive
and specific analytical methods have enabled measurements of
186
Ther Drug Monit  Volume 30, Number 2, April 2008
drugs at very low concentrations in a small volume of OF.
There remain challenges in OF collection to avoid absorption.
Long-term contamination of columns and ion source in the
GC-MS instrument because of interfering substances in pre-
servation buffer solutions is a problem as well as ion sup-
pression and/or enhancement in LC-MS-(MS) instruments.
On-site tests are a helpful tool for police officers but their
sensitivity, especially for THC and benzodiazepines, still
needs improvement.
REFERENCES
1. Gunnar T, Ariniemi K, Lillsunde P. Validated toxicological determination
of 30 drugs of abuse as optimized derivatives in oral fluid by long column
fast gas chromatography/electron impact mass spectrometry. J Mass
Spectrom. 2005;40:739–753.
2. Wood M, Laloup M, del Mar Ramirez Fernandez M, et al. Quantitative
analysis of multiple illicit drugs in preserved oral fluid by solid-phase
extraction and liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry.
Forensic Sci Int. 2005;150:227–38.
3. Oiestadt EL, Johansen U, Christophersen AS. Clin Chem. 2007;53:2:
300–309.
4. Kankaanpää A, Gunnar T, Ariniemi K, et al. Single-step procedure for gas
chromatography–mass spectrometry screening and quantitative determi-
nation of amphetamine-type stimulants and related drugs in blood, serum,
oral fluid and urine samples. J Chromatogr B. 2004;810:57–68.
5. Samyn N, Verstraete A, van Haaren C, et al. Analysis of drugs of abuse in
saliva. Forensic Sci Int. 1999;11:11–19.
6. Verstraete AG, Raes E. ROSITA-2 Project. Final Report. Ghent, Belgium:
University of Ghent; 2006.
7. Choo RE, Huestis MA. Oral fluid as a diagnostic tool. Clin Chem Lab
Med. 2004;42:1273–1287.
8. Samyn N, Verstrate A, van Haeren C, et al. Analysis of drugs of abuse in
saliva. Forensic Sci Rev. 1999;11:1–19.
9. Kidwell DA, Holland JC, Athanaselis S. Testing for drugs of abuse in
saliva and sweat. J Chromatogr B. 1998;713:11–135.
10. Schram W, Smith RH, Graig PA, et al. Drugs of abuse in saliva: a review.
J Anal Toxicol. 1992;16:1–9.
11. Kintz P, Samyn N. Use of alternative specimens: drugs of abuse in saliva
and doping agents in hair. Ther Drug Monit. 2002;24:239–246.
12. Verstraete AG. Oral fluid testing for driving under the influence of drugs:
history, recent progress and remaining challenges. Forensic Sci Int. 2005;
50:143–150.
13. Höld KM, de Boer D, Zuidema J, et al. Saliva as an analytical tool in
toxicology. Int J Drug Testing. 1996;1:15–36.
14. Navarro M, Pichini S, Farre M, et al. Usefulness of saliva for measurement
of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine and its metabolites: correction
with plasma drug concentrations and effect of salivary pH. Clin Chem.
2001;47:1788–1795.
15. Kidwell DA. Discussion: caveats in testing for drugs of abuse. NIDA Res
Monogr. 1992;117:98–120.
16. Samyn N, van Haeren C. On-site testing of saliva and sweat with
Drugwipe and determination of concentrations of drugs of abuse in
saliva, plasma and urine of suspected users. Int J Legal Med. 2000;113:
150–154.
17. Drummer OH. Review: pharmacokinetics of illicit drugs in oral fluid.
Forensic Sci Int. 2005;150:143–150.
18. Engblom C, Gunnar T, Rantanen A, et al. Driving under influence of
drugs—amphetamine concentrations in oral fluid and whole blood
sample. J Anal Toxicol. 2007;31:276–280.
19. Grönholm M, Lillsunde P. A comparison between on-site immunoassay
drug-testing devices and laboratory results. Forensic Sci Int. 2001;121:
37–46.
20. Pehrsson A, Gunnar T, Engblom C, et al. Roadside oral fluid testing:
comparison of the results of Drugwipe 5 and Drugwipe benzodiazepines
on-site tests with laboratory confirmation results of oral fluid and whole
blood. Forensic Sci Int. 2008;175:140–148.
21. Verstraete A. ROSITA 1. ROSITA Roadside Testing Assessment EU
Project Report. Ghent, Belgium: University of Ghent; 2001.
q 2008 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Ther Drug Monit  Volume 30, Number 2, April 2008
22. Penttilä A, Karhunen PJ, Pikkarainen J. Alcohol screening with the
Alcoscan test trip in forensic praxis. Forensic Sci Int. 1990;44:43–48.
23. Leino U, Saarimies J, Grönholm M, et al. Comparison of eight commercial
on-site screening devices for drugs of abuse testing. Scand J Clin Lab
Invest. 2001;61:325–332.
24. Gunnar T, Rantanen A, Engblom C, et al. ROSITA2 in Finland. In:
Verstraete AG, Raes E, eds. ROSITA-2 Project. Final Report. Ghent,
Belgium: University of Ghent; 2006:55–95.
25. Lillsunde P, Pehrsson A, Engblom C, et al. The combined Ôzero tolerance
lawÕ and Ôimpairment lawÕ for drugs and driving in Finland. T 2007. In: Logan
BK, Isenschmid DS, Walsh JM, et al, eds. Abstracts of the Joint International
Meeting of ICADTS/TIAFT/IIS. Confrence Abstracts; 2007:P111.
26. Crouch DJ. Oral fluid collection: The neglected variable in oral fluid
testing. Forensic Sci Int. 2005;150:165–173.
27. Pehrsson A, Engblom C, Langel K, et al. T 2007. In: Logan BK,
Isenschmid DS, Walsh JM, et al, eds. Abstracts of the Joint International
Meeting of ICADTS/TIAFT/IIS. Confrence Abstracts; 2007:126.
28. Samyn N, Laloup M, De Boeck G. Bioanalytical procedures for deter-
mination of drugs of abuse in oral fluid. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2007;388:
1437–1453.
29. Laloup M, Tilman G, Maes V, et al. Validation of an ELISA-based
screening assay for the detection of amphetamine, MDMA and MDA in
blood and oral fluid. Forensic Sci Int. 2005;153:29–37.
30. Lillsunde P, Korte T. Thin layer chromatographic screening and gas
chromatographic/mass spectrometric confirmation in the analysis of
abused drugs. In: Adamovics JA, ed. Analyzing Abused Drugs. New York,
Basel: Marcel Dekker Inc; 1995:221–265.
31. Smith ML, Swawn PV, Holler JM, et al. Modern instrumental methods in
forensic toxicology. J Anal Toxicol. 2007;31:237–253.
32. Gunnar T, Ariniemi K, Lillsunde P. Fast gas chromatography–negative-ion
chemical ionization mass spectrometry with microscale volume sample
preparation for the determination of benzodiazepines and a-hydroxy
metabolites, zaleplon and zopiclone in whole blood. J Mass Spectrom.
2006;41:741–754.
33. Gunnar T, Eskola T, Lillsunde P. Fast gas chromatography/mass
spectrometric assay for the validated quantitative determination of
methadone and the primary metabolite EDDP in whole blood. Rapid
Commun Mass Spectrom. 2006;20:673–679.
34. Niedbada RS, Kardos K, Salamone S, et al. Passive cannabis smoke
exposure and oral fluid testing. J Anal Toxicol. 204;28:546–552.
q 2008 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Drug Detection in Oral Fluid
35. Niedbala RS, Kardos KW, Fritch DF, et al. Passive cannabis smoke
exposure and oral fluid testing. II. Two studies of extreme cannabis smoke
exposure in a motor vehicle. J Anal Toxicol. 2005;29:607–615.
36. Gunnar T, Ariniemi K. Fast gas chromatography/mass spectrometry in
toxicological analyses: definition, essential parameters and applicability.
In: Logan BK, Isenschmid DS, Walsh JM, et al, eds. Abstracts of the
Joint International Meeting of ICADTS/TIAFT/IIS. Confrence Abstracts;
2007:P5.
37. Maurer HH. Advances in analytical toxicology: the current role of liquid
chromatography-mass spectrometry in drug quantification in blood and
oral fluid. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2005;381:110–118.
38. Maurer HH. Hyphenated mass spectrometric techniques—indispensable
tools in clinical and forensic toxicology and in doping control. J Mass
Spectrom. 2006;41:1399–1413.
39. Maurer HH. Current role of liquid-chromatography–mass spectrometry in
clinical and forensic toxicology. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2007;388:1315-1326.
40. Dams R, Huestis MA, Lambert WE, et al. Matrix effect in bio-analysis of
illicit drugs with LC-MS/MS: influence of ionization type, sample
preparation, and biofluid. J Am Soc Mass Spectrom. 2003;14:1290–1294.
41. Maurer HH. Position of chromatographic techniques in screening for
detection of drugs or poisons in clinical and forensic toxicology and/or in
doping control. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2004;42:1310–1324.
42. Saint-Marcoux F, Sauvage FL, Marquet P. Current role of LC-MS in
therapeutic drug monitoring. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2007;388:1327–1350.
43. Smink E, Mathijssen MPM, Lusthof KJ, et al. Comparison of urine and
oral fluid as matrices for screening of thirty-three benzodiazepines and
benzodiazepine-like substances using immunoassay and LC-MS(-MS).
J Anal Toxicol. 2006;30:478–485.
44. Teixeira H, Proenca P, Castanheira A, et al. Cannabis and driving: the use
of LC-MS to detect tetrahydrocannabinol) in oral fluid samples. Forensic
Sci Int. 2004;146S:S61–S63.
45. Kinz P, VillainM, Concheiro M, et al. Screening and confirmatory method
for benzodiazepines and hypnotics in oral fluid by LC-MS-MS. Forensic
Sci Int. 2005;150:213–220.
46. Peters F, Maurer H. Bioanalytical method validation and its implications
for forensic and clinical toxicology—a review. Accred Qual Assur. 2002;
7:441–449.
47. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAM-
SHA). Proposed revision to mandatory guidelines for federal work-place
drug testing programs. Federal Register. 2004;69:19673–19732.
187