DOCSLIB.ORG

INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIVE EXERCISES (ICE) Summary Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIVE EXERCISES (ICE) Summary Report INTERNATIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAMME (IQAP) INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIVE EXERCISES (ICE) Summary Report SEIZED MATERIALS 2017/2 INTERNATIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAMME (IQAP) INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIVE EXERCISES (ICE) Table of contents Introduction 3 Page Comments from the International Panel of Forensic Experts Page 3 NPS reported by ICE participants Page 5 Codes and Abbreviations Page 7 Sample 1 Analysis Page 8 Identified substances Page 8 Statement of findings Page 13 Identification methods Page 23 Summary Page 29 Z-Scores Page 30 Sample 2 Analysis Page 33 Identified substances Page 33 Statement of findings Page 38 Identification methods Page 48 Summary Page 54 Z-Scores Page 55 Sample 3 Analysis age P 58 Identified substances Page 58 Statement of findings Page 63 Identification methods Page 73 Summary Page 79 Z-Scores Page 80 Sample 4 Analysis Page 84 Identified substances Page 84 Statement of findings Page 86 Identification methods Page 92 Summary Page 98 Test Samples Information Samples Comments on samples Sample 1 SM-1 was prepared from a seizure containing 31.3 % (w/w) 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone base. The test sample also contained lactose. Sample 2 SM-2 was prepared from a seizure containing 5.6 % (w/w) amfetamine base. The test sample also contained caffeine and creatine. Sample 3 SM-3 was prepared from a seizure containing 39.9 % (w/w) metamfetamine base. The test sample also contained lactose. Sample 4 SM-4 was a blank test sample of damiana leaf and contained no substances from the ICE menu Samples Substances Concentrations Comments on substances Sample 1 3,4-Methylenedioxypyrovalerone 31.3 % Lactose - Sample 2 Amfetamine 5.6 % Sample 3 Lactose - Metamfetamine 39.9 % Sample 4 [blank sample] - This report contains the data received from laboratories participating in the current exercise. The results compiled in this report are not intended to be an overview of the quality of work and cannot be interpreted as such. These comments do not reflect the general state of the art within the profession. Participant results are reported using a randomly assigned "WebCode". This code maintains participant's anonymity, provides linking of the various report sections, and will change with every report. 2017/2-SM 2 Copyright (c) 2018 UNODC INTERNATIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAMME (IQAP) INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIVE EXERCISES (ICE) Introduction An important element of the UNODC International Quality Assurance Programme (IQAP) is the implementation of the International Collaborative Exercises (ICE). The exercises allow laboratories, from both developing and developed countries to continuously monitor their performance in drug testing on a truly global scale. This report provides information on analytical results of laboratories participating in the Seized Materials (SM) group. In order to maintain confidentiality, the participating laboratories have been assigned random “Web Codes”, which change every round. The analytical results returned by laboratories participating in ICE are evaluated by UNODC and a confidential report is provided to each laboratory on its own performance. The overall analytical results are reviewed by the UNODC’s International Panel of Forensic Experts which oversees the implementation of these exercises, and offers guidance and support in addressing relevant quality issues. The exercises provide an overview of the performance and capacity of participating laboratories and enable UNODC to tailor technical support in the laboratory sector for greatest impact. The ICE programme is a UNODC mandated activity and is implemented through regular budget funds and through the UNODC Global Scientific and Forensic Programme – Support Project (GLOU54), which operationalizes the forensic aspects of the UNODC Thematic Programme on Research, Trend Analysis and Forensics" Comments from the International Panel of Forensic Experts Participation of Laboratories In the 2017/2 round of the ICE programme, results were submitted within both the Seized Materials (SM) and Biological Specimens (BS) test groups by 241 laboratories in 74 countries. Within the SM test group, there were 200 participating laboratories from 68 countries and within the BS test group, results were submitted by 95 laboratories from 43 countries. Qualitative Analysis The analytical technique most commonly used for screening of test samples in the SM test group was the marquis reagent (39% of participants), while GC-MS (88% of participants) was the most commonly used technique for identification/confirmation of the components in the test samples followed by FTIR (39% of participants). The results for the qualitative identification of the controlled substances in the SM test group, the number of false positive/negative results and the analyses not performed are shown in the table 1. Table 1. Performance of participants in the 2017/2 round of ICE. SM-1 SM-2 SM-3 SM-4 Test sample (MDPV) (Amfetamine) (Metamfetamine) (Blank) Correct identification by 97% 94% 100% 99% participants Number of false 10 5 1 1 positives Number of false 3 11 0 1 negatives Number of Analyses not 3 3 0 0 performed With regard to false negative results reported, there were a total of fifteen (three for SM-1, eleven for SM-2 and one for SM-4). In total, there were seventeen false positive results for controlled substances or new psychoactive substances. The overall number of false positive/negative results reported by ICE participants continues to be low and while this is encouraging, laboratories reporting false positive or false negative results should investigate the reasons for this and corrective actions should be taken in order to continuously improve performance. While there were only a total of six analyses not performed, ICE participants should notethat test samples can contain any of the substances in the ICE menu and screening and identificationcarried out should take this into account. 2017/2-SM 3 Copyright (c) 2018 UNODC INTERNATIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAMME (IQAP) INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIVE EXERCISES (ICE) Quantitative Analysis The number of participants who carried out quantitative analysis, 49 (25%) for SM-1, 98 (50%) for SM-2 and 103 (53%) for SM-3 continues to be encouraging. It is also encouraging that 113 (58%) of participants in the SM test group performed quantitation and of these, 88 (78%) quantified more than one substance and 49 (43%) quantified all three test samples. It is understood that quantitative analysis of controlled substances is often governed by local legislation and the requirements of prosecution. With regard to the analytical techniques used by participants performing quantitation, 50% used GC-FID, 27% used HPLC and 21% used mass spectrometry. z-scores obtained by participants in quantification are shown in table 2 below. Table 2. Quantitative performance of participants in the 2017/2 round of ICE. Test sample z-score SM-1 SM-2 SM-3 SM-4 (MDPV) (Amfetamine) (Metamfetamine) (Blank) |z| < 2, satisfactory 80% 81% 83% - 2 ≤ |z| ≤ 3, questionable 2% 8% 7% - |z| > 3, unsatisfactory 18% 11% 10% - According to the recommendations in ISO 13528:2005, an unsatisfactory z-score is considered to give an action signal and a questionable z-score is considered to give a warning signal. A single action signal or warning signals in two successive rounds shall be taken that an anomaly has occurred that requires investigation. Participants with z-scores outside acceptable limits should review their quantification procedures. In the 2017/1 round of ICE, twenty one laboratories obtained questionable z-scores with 2 ≤ |z| < 3. Eleven of these laboratories participated and performed quantification in the 2017/2 round with ten (91%) laboratories improving their performance and obtaining acceptable z-scores with |z| < 2 for at least one substance. Six (55%) of these laboratories also obtained unsatisfactory z-scores and one (9%) laboratory obtained a questionable z-score in 2017/2. 23 laboratories obtained unsatisfactory z-scores in ICE 2017/1 with |z| ≥ 3. Of these laboratories, 11 participated in ICE 2017/2 and performed quantification, with seven (64%) improving their performance in at least one substance. Seven (64%) of these laboratories also obtained an unsatisfactory z-score in the 2017/2 round and three (27%) obtained questionable z-scores. The following laboratories obtained a single action signal or warning signal in the two successive rounds of 2017/1 and 2017/2 and shall take this as an anomaly, which requires further investigation: GLXRWX, VYHLIW, SSNSSS, RYT9EQ, UK1I4W, 6Y22ZW, TFIEH5, EP44XZ, 1M08A3, LDL46L, P9VJ99, 1M08A3, KR7NVL, VQI99W, ZM999M, BPKXUS, WWT4QM. Of the laboratories that obtained a single action or warning signal in ICE rounds 2016/2 and 2017/1, the following also obtained an action or warning signal in 2017/2 GLXRWX, KR7NVL, 6Y22ZW, TFIEH5, BPKXUS. Laboratories that need to perform quantitation routinely are encouraged to participate regularly in external proficiency testing or collaborative exercises such as the ICE programme. This will enable laboratories to assess the quality of their quantitative methods through the z-score values obtained. In addition to the use of z-scores as a measure of performance in quantitation, participants are encouraged to compare their results with the assigned values provided in individual quantification reports, to assess the accuracy of their quantitative performance. Laboratories reporting false positive or false negative results should investigate the root causes and corrective actions
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Virginia Acts of Assembly -- 2021 Special Session I
    VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY -- 2021 SPECIAL SESSION I CHAPTER 110 An Act to amend and reenact §§ 3.2-4112, 3.2-4113, 3.2-4114.2, 3.2-4115, 3.2-4116, 3.2-4118, 3.2-4119, 18.2-247, 18.2-251.1:3, 54.1-3401, and 54.1-3446 of the Code of Virginia, relating to industrial hemp; emergency. [H 2078] Approved March 12, 2021 Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia: 1. That §§ 3.2-4112, 3.2-4113, 3.2-4114.2, 3.2-4115, 3.2-4116, 3.2-4118, 3.2-4119, 18.2-247, 18.2-251.1:3, 54.1-3401, and 54.1-3446 of the Code of Virginia are amended and reenacted as follows: § 3.2-4112. Definitions. As used in this chapter, unless the context requires a different meaning: "Cannabis sativa product" means a product made from any part of the plant Cannabis sativa, including seeds thereof and any derivative, extract, cannabinoid, isomer, acid, salt, or salt of an isomer, whether growing or not, with a concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol that is greater than that allowed by federal law. "Deal" means to buy temporarily possess industrial hemp grown in compliance with state or federal law and to sell such industrial hemp to a person who that (i) processes industrial hemp in compliance with state or federal law or has not been processed and (ii) sells industrial hemp to a person who processes industrial hemp in compliance with state or federal law was not grown and will not be processed by the person temporarily possessing it.
    [Show full text]
  • Questions & Answers
    SERVING CANADIANS Research and Statistics Division questions & answers February 2003 www.canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/rs Drug Use and Offending by: Nathalie Quann, Research Analyst Q1. How has drug legislation changed recently? Table of Contents Q1. How has drug legislation changed recently? .................................................1 Since May 1997, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act governs all drug offences in Canada. Q2. What are the most recent Canadian statistics on drug use? ............................2 Prior to 1997, the two most important federal statutes dealing with Q3. What is the public attitude towards illicit drugs were the Narcotics Control Act (NCA) and the Food and decriminalization of drugs? ...................4 Drugs Act (FDA). The Narcotics Control Act governed over 120 different types of drugs such as cocaine, heroin, opium, and Q4. What do Canadians think about the cannabis. The NCA did not distinguish one drug from another. For medical use of soft drugs? ......................5 example, cannabis and cocaine offenders were subject to the same Q5. How is the health care system affected criminal procedures and penalties. The Food and Drugs Act governed by drug use and abuse? ..........................5 the regulation of pharmaceutical drugs, food, cosmetics, and medical devices. Two parts most specifically dealt with the non-medical use Q6. How many drug offences were reported of specific drugs: Part III governed "controlled drugs" (such as by the police in 2000? ............................6 amphetamines, barbiturates, testosterone) while Part IV governed Q7. Are offenders always charged by the "restricted drugs" (such as LSD, and other hallucinogenic drugs). police when drugs are involved? ...........7 The maximum penalties were less strict under the FDA than the NCA.
    [Show full text]
  • Food and Drug Act Cap F. 32
    FOOD AND DRUGS ACT Cap. F. 32 LFN 2004 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Food, drugs, cosmetics and devices 1. Prohibition of sale of certain food, drugs, cosmetic and devices. 2. Prohibition of sale or advertisement of food, etc., as treatment, etc., for certain diseases. 3. Prohibition of importation, exportation, distribution, etc., of specified drugs. 4. Power of Minister to obtain particulars in respect of certain substances. 5. Prohibition of various misleading practices. 6. Manufacture, etc., of food, etc., under insanitary conditions. 7. Minister's certificate for manufacture, etc., of drugs specified in the Fourth or Fifth Schedule. 8. Declaration by manufacturer. 9. Designation of inspecting officers and analysts. 10. Powers of inspecting officers. 11. False statement. 12. Obstruction of inspecting officers. 13. Power of inspecting officers on importation of food, etc. Forfeiture 14. Forfeiture. Advisory Council 15. Food and Drugs Advisory Council. Regulations 16. Regulations. Penalties and legal proceedings 17. Penalties. 18. Trial of offences. 19. Defence in proceedings for sale of food, etc. 20. Certificates and presumptions. General 21. Interpretation. 22. Short title. SCHEDULES FIRST SCHEDULE Diseases, etc., referred to in section 2 SECOND SCHEDULE Drugs referred to in section 3 THIRD SCHEDULE Publications referred to in section 5 FOURTH SCHEDULE Drugs referred to in section 7 (1 ) FIFTH SCHEDULE Drugs referred to in section 7 (2) FOOD AND DRUGS ACT An Act to make provision for the regulation of the manufacture, sale and advertisement of food, drugs, cosmetics and devices and repeal the existing State laws on those matters. [10th February, 1976] [Commencement.] Food, drugs, cosmetics and devices 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Archived Content Contenu Archivé
    ARCHIVED - Archiving Content ARCHIVÉE - Contenu archivé Archived Content Contenu archivé Information identified as archived is provided for L’information dont il est indiqué qu’elle est archivée reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It est fournie à des fins de référence, de recherche is not subject to the Government of Canada Web ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’est pas Standards and has not been altered or updated assujettie aux normes Web du gouvernement du since it was archived. Please contact us to request Canada et elle n’a pas été modifiée ou mise à jour a format other than those available. depuis son archivage. Pour obtenir cette information dans un autre format, veuillez communiquer avec nous. This document is archival in nature and is intended Le présent document a une valeur archivistique et for those who wish to consult archival documents fait partie des documents d’archives rendus made available from the collection of Public Safety disponibles par Sécurité publique Canada à ceux Canada. qui souhaitent consulter ces documents issus de sa collection. Some of these documents are available in only one official language. Translation, to be provided Certains de ces documents ne sont disponibles by Public Safety Canada, is available upon que dans une langue officielle. Sécurité publique request. Canada fournira une traduction sur demande. SERVING CANADIANS Research and Statistics Division questions & answers February 2003 www.canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/rs Drug Use and Offending by: Nathalie Quann, Research Analyst Q1. How has drug legislation changed recently? Table of Contents Q1. How has drug legislation changed recently? .................................................1 Since May 1997, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act governs all drug offences in Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Laws and Regulations Promulgated to Give Effect to the Provisions of the International Treaties on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
    UNITED NATIONS E/NL.1980/45-48* 12 November I984 ENGLISH ONLY Original: ENGLISH AND LAWS AND REGULATIONS PROMULGATED TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL TREATIES ON NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES In accordance with the relevant articles of the international treaties on narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, the Secretary-General has the honour to communicate the following legislative texts. CANADA Communicated "by the Government of Canada NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT a) Internationa! non-proprietary names in the text have been underlined by the Secretariat. b) Some editing of texts may be done by the Secretariat in the interest of clarity. In this connection, words in square brackets [ ] have been added or changed by the Secretariat. c) Only passages directly relevant to the control of narcotic drugs or psycho• tropic substances have been reproduced in thjs document. Non-relevant parts of laws and regulations have been deleted by the Secretariat; such deletions are indicated by [...]. INDEX Page E/NL.1980/45 Narcotic Control Act, amended by 1978-79 1 E/NL.1980/46 Narcotic Control Regulations, amended by P.C. 1978-444 16 E/NL.1980/47 Food and Drugs Act, amended by 1976-77 37 E/NL.1980/48 Food and Drugs Regulations, amended by C.R.C. 870, Part G 54 and P.C. 1979-2831, Part J Office Consolidation E/NL.1980/45 February 1980 NARCOTIC CONTROL ACT 1/ Amended 1978-79 CHAPTER N-l AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONTROL OF NARCOTIC DRUGS Short Title 1. This Act may be cited as the Narcotic Control Act.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of the Regulation of the Medical Uses of Psychedelic Drugs and Marijuana
    CHAPTER 1 THE EVOLUTION OF THE REGULATION OF THE MEDICAL USES OF PSYCHEDELIC DRUGS AND MARIJUANA Scholarly investigations into the medical properties of psychedelic drugs and marijuana began in the United States in the 19th century within a completely open regulatory environment. The FDA was not yet established.4 Neither physicians5 nor pharmacists6 were required to have licenses. Consumers as well as physicians could purchase whatever drugs they chose without prescriptions.7 Medicines did not need to identify their contents.8 Research protocols did not need to be given prior approval by any Federal agency.9 Patients did not need to sign “informed consent forms” outlining the risks of participating in the research protocol.10 Protocols did not need to be approved by local Institutional Review Boards (IRB).11 No state had yet established its own review 4Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. 59 P.L. 384; 59 Cong. Ch. 3915; 34 Stat. 768. June 30, 1906. 5In 1889, the Supreme Court upheld the right of States to require licenses for physicians, which were to be obtained from State Boards of Health. Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114 (1889). Justice Field, delivering the opinion of the Court, stated, “The power of the State to provide for the general welfare of its people authorizes it to prescribe all such regulations as, in its judgment, will secure or tend to secure them against the consequences of ignorance and incapacity as well as of deception and fraud.“ 6Around the turn of the century, almost all pharmacists were licensed by State Boards.
    [Show full text]
  • Laws and Regulations Promulgated to Give Effect to the Provisions of the International Treaties on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
    UNITED NATIONS E/NL. 1979/33-38 3 November 1981 ENGLISH ONLY LAWS AND REGULATIONS PROMULGATED TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL TREATIES ON NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES AUSTRALIA Communicated by the Government of Australia NOTE BY THE SECRETARY-GENERAL - In accordance with the relevant Articles of the International Treaties on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, the Secretary-General has the honour to communicate the following legislative texts. INDEX Page E/NL.1979/33 WESTERN AUSTRALIA: Order in Council under Poisons Act, 196^- 1970, of 21 April 1978 1 E/NL.1979/3^ WESTERN AUSTRALIA: Amendment to the Poisons Act Regulations, 1965, of 16 October 1978 2 1979/35 E/NL. VICTORIA: Health (Amendment) Act 1977 3 Narcotic and Psychotropic Drugs Act, 193^- 1979/36 E/NL. SOUTH AUSTRALIA: 1977: Application to certain drugs lh Narcotic and Psychotropic Drugs E/NL.1979/37 SOUTH AUSTRALIA: Regulations, 1978 18 Amendments to the Narcotic and E/NL.1979/38 SOUTH AUSTRALIA: Psychotropic Drugs Regulations, 1978 WESTERN AUSTRALIA E/NL.1979/33 Government Gazette, 21 April 1978 1/ Poisons Act, 196^-1970- ORDER IN COUNCIL WHEREAS "by section 21 of the Poisons Act, 196U-1970, it is provided that the Governor may from time to time, by Order in Council, amend any of the Schedules referred to in section 20 of that Act by (i) the addition thereto or the deletion therefrom of any substance; (ii) the deletion and substitution of all of the items in any Schedule; (iii) the transference of any substance from any Schedule to
    [Show full text]