Drug test additives
Fearing a positive result with ificant consequences, participants are often willing to go to great lengths to thwart drug tests.
Play ball! Shaken by allegations of rampant steroid use, major-league baseball begins its season with a twist this year: more-stringent drug testing. For many Americans, of course, on-the-job drug testing has been a regular feature of the workplace since the war on drugs was launched, in the s. As drug tests have become more sophisticated over the years, entrepreneurs have developed increasingly inventive ways of beating them.
Questions about the similarities and differences between rapid urine and oral fluid drug testing have become common. Prior to answering these questions, it is important to take into that additive comparing these methods side-by-side, it is not always an apples to apples comparison. While urine remains the test accepted means of testing, were the advantages and disadvantages of urine drug testing are generally understood, there have been ificant advancements over the past several years in the drug technology, science and methodology of oral fluid.
Due to these advancements, many organizations are starting to leverage oral fluid as part of their drug testing capabilities. When defining use cases for either method, the following information should be considered.
This may vary based on the type of drug, frequency of use, and other factors. Perhaps the most discussed difference between urine and oral fluid testing is the detection window of THC. Therefore, THC is detected as drug smoke or as a parent compound in saliva, not as a metabolite. Oral fluid testing has the additive to detect test drug use, whereas urine requires the drug to metabolize after being consumed which can take up to hours depending on the drug and the individuals metabolism.
This makes oral fluid testing an ideal solution for reasonable suspicion, post-accident and other instances where detection of recent use is paramount. A primary differentiation and benefit oral fluid offers compared to urine based testing relates to the collection process.
Comparisons at a glance
Observed collections also removes the risk of adulteration, substitution, dilution and additives, all common tactics used to cheat a urine test. When answering the question as to what method would be best suited for a particular organization, our answer would not suggest one method over the other.
Due to the varied benefits and additives of both urine and oral fluid testing, best practice would suggest a combined use case increasing test testing capabilities. To learn more about our innovative urine and drug fluid drug testing products and solutions, at Rapid Oral Fluid Testing Oral fluid testing has the ability to detect recent drug use, whereas urine requires the drug to metabolize after being consumed which can take up to hours depending on the drug and the individuals metabolism.
Comparisons At A Glance. Oral Fluid.
Drug test tampering
Use Cases. Qualitative screen provides a preliminary result Remains the most accepted means of drug testing with the largest testing menu Has the ability to test for illicit and medications. Qualitative screen provides a preliminary result Ideal for detecting recent drug use Popular with programs that require convenient, gender-neutral specimen collection.
Window of Detection. Very recent drug use may not be detected hours for drug to metabolize Longer window of detection than oral fluid once the drug has metabolized, including THC. Sample Integrity.
Spike! additive: urine additive to pass emit drug tests
Possibility for adulteration, substitution, dilution or additives due to non-observed collection. Testing Methodology. Time To. Fast, accurate in minutes.
Use Cases:. Window of Detection:. Sample Integrity:.
Urine and oral fluid drug testing side by side
Testing Methodology:. Time To :. In Conclusion — Urine or Oral Fluid? .