Hair Analysis as a Drug Detector

By Tom Mieczkowski, Ph.D.

Series: NIJ Research in Brief Published: October 1995 Tom Mieczkowski,
Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Criminal Justice in the Department of
Criminology, University of South Florida.

Copies of the unpublished full report prepared for NIJ grant
#92-IJ-CX-K010, “Hair Assays for Drugs of Abuse in a Probation
Population: Implementation of a Pilot Study in a Correctional Field
Setting,” by Tom Mieczkowski, Ph.D., Richard A. Newel, Gail Allison, and
Shirley Coletti, are available on interlibrary loan or as photocopies for
a minimal fee. Call NCJRS, 800-851-3420; ask for NCJ 152420.

Issues and Findings

Discussed in this Brief: An NIJ-sponsored study of the viability and
effectiveness of testing hair samples for drug use among probationers,
which was conducted with the assistance of correctional officers from
divisions of the Florida Department of Corrections Probation Field
Services.

Key issues: Because urine testing of drug offenders is known to be
particularly burdensome, a pilot study was developed to determine whether
hair assays, which are noninvasive and have a larger window of detection,
could be more effective. Over a 6-month period, volunteer probationers
were tested for a variety of substances. Researchers also questioned the
field officers about their opinions as to the usefulness of the
testing.

Key findings: Researchers used both methods to test for cocaine,
opiates, marijuana, and other drugs. Among their findings:

• Hair analysis is a better indicator of cocaine use over an extended
  timeframe and can more accurately identify a chronic drug user. Urine
  analysis, on the other hand, is better able to measure short-term
  exposure to cocaine.
• Urine analysis seems to be a better way to detect opiates,
  particularly the presence of codeine. Hair assays are designed to
  detect morphine-based compounds.
• Both hair and urine tests appear to have equal effect in detecting
  the presence of marijuana.
• Hair and urine testing can complement one another because of their
  capacity to expose different patterns of drug use.
• The field officers agreed that hair testing for drugs can be
  beneficial in their efforts to manage their cases and to track drug use
  over a longer time period. Most of the officers agreed that gathering
  hair for tests was less difficult than collecting urine samples.

Target audience: Probation/parole officers, law enforcement officials,
policymakers, and researchers.

Testing hair samples for drugs of abuse may offer certain advantages
over urine testing methodologies. Drugs and drug metabolites remain
sequestered in the hair shaft indefinitely, thus providing detection
during a much larger “window” (approximately 60 days of use can be seen
in one inch of hair) than drug levels in urine, which decrease rapidly,
through excretion, over a short period of time (generally within 48 to 72
hours). From an operational standpoint, the collection, transportation,
preservation, and storage of nonseptic and inert hair samples are simple
processes and relatively noninvasive when compared to those associated
with collecting observed urine specimens.

An NIJ-sponsored pilot study assessed the feasibility and
effectiveness of doing hair assays in a probationary field setting and
the attitude of probation officers regarding hair testing.

Recruitment and retention of probationers

Twenty-two correctional officers from divisions of the Florida
Department of Corrections Probation Field Services voluntarily
participated in this study. Officer-volunteers were asked to solicit from
each of their caseloads 8-10 volunteers who were currently undergoing at
least monthly urine testing. A simple hair collection procedure was
incorporated into the officers’ appointment routine, but no information
on the outcome of the hair assays was used in any aspect of case
management. At each appointment the officers collected a urine specimen
and a hair specimen from the probationer.

Of the 152 volunteer probationers initially recruited for the project,
91 participated for the entire 6-month collection period, and complete
specimens were collected for 89. The study cohort was predominantly male
(72 men versus 19 women) and white (87 Caucasians, 3 African Americans,
and 1 Hispanic were represented). Researchers attributed the low number
of African- American participants to demographics of Pinellas and Pasco
county regions (only about 7 percent of the population in these counties
is African-American), as well as to the fact that young African-American
males were likely to have extremely short head hair; the project did not
attempt to retrieve body hair samples.

Hair and urine specimens were conjointly analyzed for cocaine,
opiates, cannabinoids, PCP, and methadone. Cutoff values for hair
analysis (2 ng/10 mg for cocaine and heroin, and .05 ng/10 mg for
cannabinoids) were recommended by the testing laboratory, and
NIDA-established cutoffs (300 ml/150 for cocaine, 300 ml/300 for heroin,
and 100 ml/15 for marijuana) were used for urinalysis.

Outcomes of hair and urine assays

Complete sets of hair and urine specimens were obtained from 89
probationers. Of these, 36 were negative on both hair and urine assays,
and 33 were positive on both hair and urine assays. In 12 cases,
probationers tested negative on the urine assays and positive on the hair
assays; in 8 cases, probationers tested positive on the urine assays and
negative on the hair assays. Of the 89 complete cases, 53 had a positive
assay on at least one hair or urine sample. A slightly higher number of
drug-positive cases was detected in the hair assays (45) than in the
urine assays (41).

Cocaine. The main criteria for measuring effectiveness of cocaine
detection in this study were the ability of hair analysis to identify
periodic or chronic exposure to the drug and the ability of urinalysis to
measure acute or short-term exposure. Of the 89 completed cases, there
were none in which a probationer’s urine specimen tested cocaine-positive
and hair specimen tested cocaine-negative. This pattern, according to the
study, suggests that hair analysis is effective in identifying periodic
cocaine exposure.

Opiates. The research team was interested in evaluating the detection
of chronic opiate use by analysis of hair and comparing those findings to
the outcomes of urinalysis and any self-reports for opiates. Two problems
arose, however. The major limitation was that there were very few
opiate-positive cases within the sample. Secondly, the hair assay for
opiates is somewhat more limited than urinalysis; the hair assay was not
designed to detect codeine while the urine assay did detect codeine.
Thus, the two assays were not comparable.

Opiates were much less prevalent than cocaine or marijuana. Of all
subjects in the study, only 11 had one or more opiate-positive hair
samples, and 14 had opiate-positive urine samples. These findings include
five cases in which urine samples were positive for opiates but the
corresponding hair assays were opiate-negative. In one of these five
cases, three opiates were detected in urine samples, but none were
detected in hair. In the four remaining cases, the urine-positive,
hair-negative outcomes appeared at either the first or the fifth or sixth
urine samples. Several interpretations of these data are possible. The
hair assay may be less effective for opiates than for other drugs.
Alternatively, the urine assay may be detecting the presence of codeine
from abused medicinals, while the hair assays (which detect
morphine-based compounds) show a negative because the person has not
consumed heroin or morphine.

Possibly the opiates were near or under the limit of detection in the
hair assays; or, in the cases where the urine-positive result occurred at
the end of the study (i.e., in the fifth or sixth sample), the hair may
not have had sufficient time to emerge above the scalp (i.e., the sample
was taken too early relative to the time the drug was consumed).

Marijuana. Marijuana was the most prevalent drug detected within the
sample group by either type of assay. When considering all cases
(completed or not), 53 marijuana cases accounted for a total of 149
marijuana-positive hair samples (out of a total of 503 hair assays and
690 urine assays. The most likely outcome for any completed case, over
the full 6-month period, was that the hair and urine assays for marijuana
would be concordant, though not necessarily for the same timeframe. For
example, of the 89 completed cases, in 33 at least 1 positive assay for a
drug occurred in at least 1 specimen (either hair, urine, or both). Of
those 33 cases, 24 had a marijuana-positive assay. Of those 24, 16 had a
marijuana-positive assay in hair only; 3 had a marijuana-positive assay
in urine only. This suggests that, generally speaking, the hair assay for
marijuana is about equal in effect to the urine assay. It does not show
the enhanced detection capability that appears to be true for cocaine
assays, but the researchers believe that this result is to be expected.
Marijuana may be detected in urine for a relatively long period of time
(compared to cocaine), and one would not expect as dramatic a departure
in detection rates for a drug with long urine retention times.

Other drugs. There were no detections of PCP or methadone in the
sample group.

Participant opinions and experiences

Field officers. Participating officers varied widely in their
estimates of the degree of probationer drug involvement among their
cases; the mean value of estimated drug-user cases was 38.8 percent (s.d.
= 18.6 percent). This was quite accurate since 40.4 percent of the
participating probationers had one or more positive assays (either hair,
urine, or both). If urinalysis alone were used, only 9.8 percent of these
probationers would have been detected as positive. Nearly all officers
supported the concept and practice of probationary drug testing, when
properly conducted. Most officers said that collecting hair samples was
less burdensome than collecting urine specimens. The researchers observed
that officers were readily able to collect, package, and transport hair
samples and to obtain probationers’ cooperation.

Many officers perceived hair testing as a way to manage their cases
more effectively. For example, their ability to sort a series of
drug-positive clients into rank order categories such as “heavily,”
“moderately,” or “casually” exposed would be enhanced, as would their
capability to track drug use retrospectively (especially cocaine) over a
longer timeframe.

Probationers. Probationers ranged in age from 17 to 53 years, with a
mean age of 29.63 years (s.d. = 7.81) and a median age of 29 years. Drug
possession was the single most frequent offense charged against this
group, with drug sales, assault, and larceny following closely
behind.

Probationers were asked about their lifetime drug habits. When asked
about cocaine, 45.5 percent admitted some lifetime use; 35.5 percent
admitted monthly use; and 28.8 percent admitted weekly or greater use.
Regarding marijuana, 71.1 percent admitted some lifetime use.

Implications

The researchers suggest that hair assay technology could usefully be
combined with urine testing in probation population management. For
example, hair testing could be used as an initial screen for the
identification of long patterns of drug use, especially cocaine.
Individuals with indications of severe drug involvement could be placed
on appropriate treatment and monitoring, utilizing both urine and hair
testing, for example. Those who indicate a low level of exposure and
whose claims are consistent with assay results might be assigned to a
less intensive protocol involving, for example, hair testing every 60
days supplemented by a random urine testing requirement. Under such a
system, the data of this project indicate that the detection of users
will be enhanced and will conform more closely to the self-reported
levels of use and the probation officers’ expectations of use.

Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of
the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position or
policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of
Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

Endogenous Ethanol (EE) Production

Where does EE come from? While there’s some
evidence that small amounts are formed inside cells as metabolic
intermediaries or products, mostly it’s manufactured
in the mobile fermentation vat known as your gut. Some of the tiny things
that live in there, especially yeasts, are constantly munching ingested
carbs and churning out booze. The body absorbs this normally modest
volume of EE and it goes straight to the liver, where
it’s metabolized. Barring unusual circumstances, very
little EE makes it to the rest of the body.

To get a significant BAC from EE alone would require increased
fermentation, diminished ability to metabolize alcohol, or (probably)
both. In Japan since the 1950s there have been dozens of published case
reports of people feeling drunk after eating carbohydrates such as rice,
a condition called meitei-sho or, in English, auto-brewery syndrome.
You’re thinking: great—free sake. Not quite. It
comes with a price.

In almost every case in one review, intestinal overgrowth of candida
or other yeasts was identified as the cause. Most patients had undergone
some sort of gastrointestinal surgery—such procedures sometimes
result in increased fermentation thanks to blind loops left in the
intestine, where microbes can eat and multiply undisturbed. In most cases
not involving prior surgery, some other abnormality was noted, such as
low stomach acidity.

Auto-brewery syndrome has never been convincingly reported outside
Japan. Why? It’s all about enzymes. When the liver
processes ethanol, the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase first converts it to
acetaldehyde. In most people a second enzyme, aldehyde dehydrogenase
(ALDH), quickly converts the acetaldehyde to harmless acetate. But
roughly 50 percent of Japanese and other east Asians and some American
Indians (but practically no Europeans or Africans) have a mutated gene
that impairs ALDH activity. In these people, even a modest dose of
alcohol, imbibed or endogenous, leads to acetaldehyde buildup and
unpleasant symptoms: facial flushing, palpitations, dizziness, nausea,
headache and confusion. As acetaldehyde builds up, some is converted back
to ethanol, retarding BAC decline. Eventually various enzymes slowly
clear the acetaldehyde and the symptoms dissipate. People on drugs such
as Antabuse that inhibit ALDH activity might also be subject to
meitei-sho, but so far that hasn’t been
documented.

What’s likely happening in the Japanese cases is a
combination of high carb intake (which the Japanese diet is famous for),
yeast infection and a limited ability to metabolize the alcohol
produced—any of these alone probably won’t do the
trick. My guess is that even without considering their BAC, auto-brewery
sufferers might be in no condition to drive, since
they’d be under the influence of acetaldehyde.

The legal implications of all this vary. Generally, driving while
impaired for any reason (including tiredness or taking legal medications)
is against the law. Ignorance that you’re impaired,
which arguably might apply in the case of auto-brewery syndrome,
isn’t necessarily a defense—impaired-driving laws
in many states don’t require the element of intent. As
a practical matter, the potential consequences of EE are of greatest
concern to those subject to so-called zero-tolerance laws—mainly
drivers under 21, who may face sanctions for driving with a BAC greater
than zero, .01, or .02 percent, depending on the state. Those with
candidiasis and low ALDH activity (for genetic or pharmaceutical reasons)
can exceed those levels. If that describes you, maybe you should think
seriously about that skateboard. If not, disregard the wacky factlets and
remember that only knuckleheads drink and drive.

Comments, questions? Take it up with Cecil on the Straight Dope
Message Board, StraightDope.com, or write him at the Chicago Reader, 11
E. Illinois, Chicago 60611.

Source: http://www.slweekly.com/

Potty Mouth: Urinals Warn Against Drunk Driving

“Hey you! Yeah, you – having a few drinks? Then
listen up! Think you had one to many? Then it’s time to call a cab or
call a sober friend for a ride home. It sure is safer and a hell of a lot
cheaper than a DWI. Make the smart choice tonight: don’t drink and
drive”.

This is what men drinking at bars in Nassau County are going to be
hearing soon. Is this a concerned friend or responsible bartender
talking? No. It’s the urinal in the
men’s room.

“There is no more of a captive audience than a man at a urinal” says
Dr. Richard Deutsch, the bioengineer who invented and patented the
Wizmark Urinal Communicator, a plastic deodorizing recording device that
will play the recording when censors reveal that the urinal has a
visitor. “PSA messages have historically been bland with documented
marginal impact. This will get people talking about the contents of a PSA
message like never before,†he said.

The Nassau County Police Traffic Safety Division has initiated a pilot
program to distribute the devices for free throughout the County. The
program is to be funded by fines collected from DWI offenders.

A major proponent of the program has been Marge Lee, a DWI-crash
survivor and director of DEDICATEDD, a grass roots DWI
victims’ advocacy organization.

Venues eligible for the devices will include rest rooms in bars,
restaurants, concerts, sports stadiums, highway road stops and
schools.

Source:

Diabetes and DUI

By Lawrence Taylor: Los Angeles DUI
Lawyer

This individual (diabetic) will look and act like a drunk driver to
the officer, and will certainly fail any DUI “field sobriety tests”. As
one expert has observed, “Hypoglycemia (abnormally low levels of blood
glucose) is frequently seen in connection with driving error on this
nation’s roads and highways…Even more frequent are unjustified DUIs or
DWIs, stemming from hypoglycemic symptoms that can closely mimic those of
a drunk driver.” From “Hypoglycemia: Driving Under the Influence” in 8(1)
Medical and Toxicological Information Review Sept. 2003.

Breathalyzer will clear him,
right?

Wrong. Ignoring for the moment the inherent inaccuracy and
unreliability of these machines, most suffer from a little-known design
defect: they do not actually measure alcohol! Rather, they use infrared
beams of light which are absorbed by any chemical compound (including
ethyl alcohol) in the breath which contains the “methyl group” in its
molecular structure; the more absorption, the higher the blood-alcohol
reading. The machine is programmed to assume that the compound is
“probably” alcohol. Unfortunately, thousands of compounds containing the
methyl group can register as alcohol. One of these is “acetone”. And a
well-documented by-product of hypoglycemia is a state called
“ketoacidosis”, which causes the production of acetones in the breath. In
other words, the Breathalyzer will read significant levels of alcohol on
a diabetic’s breath where there may be little or none. See, for example,
Brick, “Diabetes, Breath Acetone and Breathalyzer Accuracy: A Case
Study”, 9(1) Alcohol, Drugs and Driving (1993).

Lawrence Taylor’s DUI Blog: Diabetes and
DUI

Also See:

• Low-Blood
  Sugar in Diabetes Patients Can Impair Ability to Drive
• New
  Diabetes Test Potential

Police in Lithuania were astonished by breath test results that showed a
driver to be 18 times over the legal alcohol limit. They assumed the
device was broken, but further tests confirmed that the 41-year-old man
registered 7.27 grams per liter of alcohol in his blood. Medical experts
say anything above 3.5 grams per liter of alcohol in the blood is lethal
for most people. “This guy should have been lying dead, but he was still
driving,†said Saulius Skvernelis, director of the national
police traffic control service. “It must be an
unofficial national record.”

18 x .10 = 8.00

May 23, 2006

A breath alcohol analyzer, or Breathalyzer, is a device used to estimate
blood alcohol content (BAC) from a
breath sample. “Breathalyzer” is actually a trademark from one
manufacturer of these devices, but has become a common term for all such
instruments. AlcoHAWK, Alcotest, Alcosensor,
Datamaster, Intoxilyzer, and Intoximeter are some other brand names in
use today.

There are a number of models of breath alcohol analyzers that are
intended for consumers. These hand-held Breathalyzers are less
expensive and can be much smaller than the devices used by law
enforcement. They can be useful in determining a user’s BAC proactively, before he or she decides whether to
drive.

The U.S. Government’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) maintains a “
Conforming Products List” of breath alcohol devices approved for law
enforcement use.

Related Articles:

• Effects of
  Alcohol
• Field Sobriety Tests
• .08 BAC
  Limit for Every State

Related Libraries:

• Legal DUI
  Articles
• DUI Research

Also See:

• Personal Portable Breathalyzers
• DUI / DWI
  Laws by State
• DUI / DWI Attorneys by State
• SR-22 Auto Insurance Quotes

TOKYO, Oct. 1 (Xinhua) — A mobile phone with a breath analyzer is
getting popular among transport firms in Japan as it can help the
companies conduct tele-checks on the drivers’ breath to prevent drunk
driving.

The system, developed by a major mobile phone operator NTT DoCoMo Inc,
has been introduced to 15 companies since its launch about three months
ago. Dozens more bus and transport companies also mull buying it, the
Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper said Sunday.

To use it, the driver first makes a video-phone call to his or her
company and breathes into the analyzer connected to the phone. The video
image showing the driver blowing into the analyzer and data regarding the
alcohol concentration on his or her breath are transmitted to the firm
and confirmed by the computer there.

If the alcohol concentration level exceeds the limit, 0.15 milligram
per liter in Japan, a warning letter in red is displayed on the
screen.

As the company can see video image, it is almost impossible for the
driver to have someone else breath into the analyzer for him. The system,
costing about 270,000 yen (about 2,290 U.S. dollars), therefore can allow
companies conduct accurate tests even when drivers were on long hauls and
could not return to office, the report said.

Editor: Yao Runping Source: www.chinaview.cn

More:

New device combats drunk driving in Japan

TOKYO, Oct. 1 (UPI) – A new cell phone device is proving popular with
bus and transport companies in the fight against drunk driving in Japan,
the Yomiuri Shimbun reported.

The device consists of a cell phone attached to a breath analyzer
developed by NTT DoCoMo Inc. As public awareness of the dangers of
intoxicated driving is growing throughout Japan, the Construction and
Transport Ministry has tightened administrative punishments for transport
companies, the report said. One of the measures was a possible suspension
in business for companies that allowed employees to drive while
intoxicated.

To use the new system, the driver makes a video-phone call to the
company, then breathes into the analyzer connected to the cell phone. The
video image of the driver blowing into the analyzer and data recording
the alcohol level on his or her breath are transmitted to the company and
confirmed there by computer.

The Yomiuri Shimbun reported the new measures have motivated companies
to become more serious about preventing drivers from operating a vehicle
while intoxicated.

Source: http://www.upi.com

Emergence of Experts

Blood alcohol limits have been in existence since the early 1920’s.
Throughout the 1930s and 40’s many European countries put alcohol limits
in their laws based on chemical tests. In the United States it wasn’t
until after WWII scientists got the call to find out limits to
‘intoxication’.

In October 1966, California passed implied consent laws were passed,
requiring drivers suspected of being under the influence “consent” to a
blood alcohol test. But it wasn’t until 1982 (AB 7 Hart) that blood
alcohol levels were actually put on the drunk driving statutes indicating
0.10% of blood alcohol was illegal to drive an automobile.

Calculate Your Blood Alcohol Level

Woman Driver Nearly 10 Times Over Limit

Tuesday May 4, 3:35 PM

A woman who gave what is thought to be Britain’s highest breath-test
reading of nearly 10 times the limit has been sentenced to a total of
four months in jail – but told she would serve only half that period.
Motorist Michelle Fothergill’s reading showed 333 micrograms per 100
millilitres of breath against the legalmaximum of 35 micrograms when she
was stopped by police, Morley magistrates sitting in Leeds were told.

Fothergill, 24, from Tennyson Street, Morley, West Yorkshire, had so
much alcohol in her body that her solicitor, Roger Clapham, admitted: “In
theory she should be dead.”

Magistrates heard that officers noticed Fothergill driving her Ford
Escort at 60mph in a 40mph stretch of the A653 in Tingley, West
Yorkshire, shortly after midnight on November 16, 1998. They said she was
also driving erratically, clipping the kerb and driving on the wrong side
of the road.

When challenged, she spoke incoherently and had to be helped out of
her car. Subsequently she fell over. Passing sentence, magistrates’
chairman Mrs Sandra Westwood said: “We feel that the offence is so
serious that a prison sentence is the only way of dealing with you.”
Fothergill was given a three-month sentence for driving while unfit to do
so and a further month, to run consecutively, for a second charge of
stealing from her employer while on bail for the driving offence.

Magistrates ordered that two months of the four-month sentence should
be suspended. They also banned her from driving for two years.