ArticleACS omega2026
Behind the Mask: Detection and Characterization of Benzalkonium Chloride Adulteration in Immunoassay-Based Urine Drug Testing for Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).
Article in ACS omega, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Urine drug testing for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is widely performed using lateral flow immunoassay (LFI) kits. However, these tests are vulnerable to adulteration by benzalkonium chloride (BAK), a cationic surfactant that is a common ingredient in consumer products, such as eyedrops and antiseptics, which can produce false-negative THC results. BAK is believed to act by forming micelles around the THC metabolite 11-nor-9-carboxy-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC-COOH), blocking detection. Because BAK is not routinely included in specimen validity testing panels, it remains a significant potential masking agent in urine drug screening. This study evaluated BAK-containing products and confirmed that readily available commercial formulations can effectively mask THC in the urine. For example, when 25 mL of an antiseptic liquid containing BAK at a nominal concentration of 1300 ppm was added to 75 mL of urine, the LFI test was found to flip from true positive to false negative. Consumer products containing lower concentrations of BAK, such as eye drops, typically mask THC detection when added to urine at an equal volume. To address the vulnerability of LFI-based THC testing to BAK addition, a rapid, low-cost, noninstrumental screening approach based on the standard addition method was developed to distinguish true negatives from BAK-induced false negatives. In blinded testing of 45 urine samples, consisting of 15 true positives, 15 true negatives, and 15 false negatives, the method correctly identified all of the adulterated samples. These findings highlight a practical strategy for improving the reliability of THC urine drug screening in settings where LFI kits are routinely used.
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.