Technology Update Drug Users Sweat It Out By National Institute of Justice Staff

Authors’ Note: The views and opinions in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect an official position of the U.S. government. References to any specific commercial products by trade name, trademark, manufacturer or otherwise do not consti tute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favoring by the U.S. government.

ith a number of high- laboration with the Pretrial Services drug use not detected by urinalysis. profile cases of alleged Agency in Washington, D.C. Sweat patches can detect several substance abuse in pro­ drugs, including amphetamine and Wfessional sports, the Current Collection , , mor­ topic of drug testing has received a phine, , marijuana and great deal of mainstream media Methods phencyclidine. However, the concen­ attention in recent months. Behind trations of the drugs in the collected Urinalysis is the most common the newspaper stories are ongoing specimen are lower than those col­ method of drug testing used in crimi­ research efforts to find better meth­ lected through urinalysis. Also, a sin­ nal justice settings, even though it ods to detect drug use. gle test uses an entire patch, which can be intrusive and uncomfortable Drug testing is used at all points in precludes repeat testing and testing for both the subject and the collec­ the criminal justice system. Results for multiple drugs. tor, requires burdensome chain-of- are used to help make decisions The Macroduct differs from the custody procedures and may require about pretrial release, probation and sweat patch in that it stimulates pro­ special facilities. parole. To improve the practice of duction of sweat, takes minutes analysis is regarded as per­ drug testing in the criminal justice rather than days and collects haps the most advanced technique, system, the National Institute of Jus­ versus dried sweat. The Macroduct but it may carry potential problems tice — the research, development — originally designed to test infants such as contamination and hair color and evaluation agency of the U.S. for cystic fibrosis — stimulates per­ bias (i.e., the darker a person’s hair, Department of Justice — funds spiration through a lightweight the more it accumulates traces of research exploring new methods and power source that delivers an organ­ ingested drugs). Saliva detection also evaluates the potential of alternative ic compound () through shows promise as an alternative col­ techniques. NIJ’s latest project discs placed on a person’s . Per­ lection method, but results can be assessed the feasibility of adapting a spiration is then forced from the skewed if the subject smokes or device called the Macroduct1 to col­ sweat into the Macroduct’s takes drugs orally just before being lect sweat and test for drug use in collector, a plastic device with spi­ tested. criminal justice settings. raled tubing. The tubing is then The project, a collaborative effort removed and the sample is trans­ between the Institute for Social Detecting Drugs ferred via a blunt-needle syringe into Analysis, the University of Utah’s a storage vial and analyzed. Center for Toxicology, and In Sweat the National Institute of Standards Correctional agencies are already and Technology’s Office of Law experimenting with sweat patches as The Evaluation Enforcement Standards, compared a way to test for drug use. A sweat After a pilot study had showed the accuracy of test results collected patch sticks to a person’s skin and that sweat samples could be collect­ using different devices and methods absorbs perspiration over days or ed in a criminal justice setting using — sweat patches, the Macroduct and weeks, which results in a sample of the Macroduct, a field study was urinalysis. The project also collected dried sweat. The adhesive used with completed using arrested individuals data about participants’ perceptions the sweat patch bonds tightly with at the Pretrial Services Agency. of the different collection methods. the skin to prevent tampering. Stud­ From the pilot study, researchers The research was conducted in col­ ies show that patches can detect learned that it would take about 30

Testing using sweat samples identified two to three times the number of users and nearly two times the number of opiate users compared to urinalysis. minutes to collect enough sweat (60 cost and a lower volume of sweat col­ detection of opiates and cocaine, it micro liters) using the Macroduct lected compared to the sweat patch. was consistent with , and out­ system. For the field test, researchers The Macroduct costs $7 per collec­ performed the sweat patch for the minimized collection time and maxi­ tion with an initial investment of detection of PCP. mized the amount of sweat collected more than $1,500 for the power The Bottom Line. Based on all of by increasing the concentration of source. In comparison, the sweat the findings, the researchers recom­ pilocarpine (the substance that stim­ patch costs $5 per collection and mend further study of the collection ulates perspiration), increasing the requires no power source. and analysis of sweat to fully under­ voltage that induces the pilocarpine, The volume of liquid sweat col­ stand its advantages and limitations. using more than one collection lected by an unmodified Macroduct However, the potential is there for device and using a collection device system is a limitation. The amount sweat to be used as an alternative modified for this purpose by the collected is only enough to perform a sample to urine in drug testing. In manufacturer (under a subcontract). limited screen for drugs of abuse and addition, the immediate, observable a confirmation of no more than one collection of liquid sweat versus the or two drugs. However, the Macrod­ longer term collection of dried sweat The Results uct system modified for this study in a patch, could work well in correc­ How well did sweat collected harvested larger samples at a faster tional facilities. using the Macroduct method detect rate. The full NIJ report, An Evaluation drugs compared with urinalysis? In detecting drugs, sweat detec­ of Innovative Sweat-Based Impressively well. Testing using tion was outperformed by hair and ing Techniques for Use in Criminal Jus sweat samples identified two to three saliva analysis for the detection of tice Drug Testing, NIJ Report 606-03, times the number of cocaine users cannabinoids. can be found online at http:// and nearly two times the number of Finally, whatever the collection nij.ncjrs. org/publications/pubs_ opiate users compared to urinalysis. method, testing may be limited by db.asp. The report was prepared for As to the volunteers’ rating of the what little is known about how drugs the National Institute of Justice, U.S. level of unpleasantness, embarrass­ are deposited into sweat; hence it Department of Justice, by the Office ment and perception of the length of can sometimes be difficult to inter­ of Law Enforcement Standards of the time required to collect the speci­ pret test results. National Institute of Standards and men, analysis of the self-reports The Good. The researchers con­ Technology under Interagency Agree­ revealed that volunteers found uri­ cluded that sweat could indeed be ment 94-IJ-R-094. nalysis to be the most embarrassing harvested using the Macroduct collection procedure, but that in method in criminal justice settings. ENDNOTES other respects, collecting sweat and The collection method was consid­ 1 The Macroduct® Sweat Collection Sys­ urine did not differ demonstrably. ered noninvasive, easily observed tem is manufactured by Wescor Inc. and well-tolerated by subjects. For many drugs, sweat may be a prefer­ What It All Means able specimen to urine for the detec­ The Bad. The barriers to using the tion of drug use. It appeared to be a Macroduct method include a higher good to excellent sample for the

Reprinted from the June 2004 issue of Corrections Today, Vol. 66, No. 3 with permission from:

The American Correctional Association, 4380 Forbes Blvd., Lanham, Maryland 20706