ArticleForensic chemistry (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2019
A multi-laboratory investigation of drug background levels.
Article in Forensic chemistry (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Considering unintentional exposure when testing for cocaine use via oral fluid testing.Forensic science international · 2026Article
- Detection of Party Drugs on Mobile Phones in Relation to Self-Reported Use and Oral Fluid Detection Among NYC Nightclub Attendees.Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs · 2026Article
- Surface swabbing of nightclub venues to monitor the presence of cocaine, ketamine, and MDMA.The American journal of drug and alcohol abuse · 2026Article
- Contamination of a drug consumption room with drugs and potential risks for social health care workers.Harm reduction journal · 2024Article
- Net Weights: Visualizing and Quantifying their Contribution to Drug Background Levels in Forensic Laboratories.Forensic chemistry (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2020Article
- An Easy to Implement Approach for Laboratories to Visualize Particle Spread During the Handling and Analysis of Drug Evidence.Forensic chemistry (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Identifying and quantifying the drug background in operational environments such as forensic laboratories is an emerging body of research. Knowing these levels is crucial to addressing issues like occupational exposure risk - due to the emergence of potent novel psychoactive substances and synthetic opioids - and data integrity - due to improvements in instrument sensitivity. The work presented here builds upon a prior study to provide a broader representation of the average drug background levels found on surfaces in forensic laboratories. Over 700 samples from 20 laboratories were collected, extracted, and analyzed quantitatively using LC-MS/MS, and qualitatively using TD-DART-MS. Quantitative analysis by LC-MS/MS included a panel of 18 drugs while the non-targeted qualitative analysis by TD-DART-MS screened for over three hundred drugs and excipients. The study focused primarily on surfaces within the drug unit and evidence receiving area of the laboratories, but also investigated other operational units (crime scene, drug interdiction, latent prints, and toxicology) as well as report writing. Background levels were highest within the drug unit of the laboratory, though detectable (tens of nanograms) levels were observed in nearly all sampled areas. The data from this expanded study plays a critical role in addressing laboratory concerns such as establishing drug identification reporting limits for new instrumentation and establishing new workflow or cleaning protocols while also providing a more comprehensive dataset for general environmental background studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.