Occupational Exposure to Methamphetamine in Workers Preparing ...

Journal of Analytical Toxicology, Vol. 30, October 2006
Occupational Exposure to Methamphetamine
in Workers Preparing Training Aids for
Drug Detection Dogs*
P.R. Stout 1,t, C.K. Horn 2,*, K.L. Klette 3,*, and J. Given 4,*
1Center for Forensic Sciences, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina; 2Navy Drug Screening Laboratory, Jacksonville,
Florida; 3Navy Drug Screening Laboratory, Great Lakes, Illinois; and 4Naval Criminal Investigative Service
Regional Forensic Laboratory, Norfolk, Virginia
Abstract I
As a part of ongoing testing of personnel preparing training aids for
drug detection dogs at the Naval Criminal Investigative Service
Regional Forensic Laboratory, personnel handling
methamphetamine (MTH) were subject to voluntary urine drug
testing. This provided a model of potential unwitting or
environmental exposure contribution to MTH concentrations in
urine. Urine samples were collected from multiple individuals on
the day before, the day of, and the day after the individuals had
handled up to 500-g quantities of MTH during the assembly of
training aids. Personnel wore gloves, dust masks, and lab coats
during the preparation of training aids. A total of 101 urine samples
were analyzed for the presence of MTH and amphetamine (AMP) by
gas chromatography-mass spectrometry after solid-phase extraction
and derivatization. Urine samples collected during and after
personnel handled drug yielded a mean MTH concentration of
48 ng/mL with a maximum concentration of 262 ng/mL and a
minimum detected concentration of approximately 1.6 ng/mL.
Thirty-five of the 52 post drug-handling samples had detectable
MTH. Ten of the samples had MTH concentrations above the
method limit of quantitation of 15 ng/mL. Only one sample had a
concentration greater than 50 ng/mL. None of the samples had
detectable AMP. From this limited study, it was evident that handling
of MTH under these conditions resulted in minimal exposure and
small but detectable concentrations of MTH in urine.
Introduction
Drug detection dogs are used throughout law enforcement
* The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, the Department of Defense, or the
U.S. Government.
~ Author to whom correspondence should be addressed: Peler R. Stout, Ph.D., Center for
Forensic Sciences, RTI International, 3040 Cornwallis Rd., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.
E-mail: pstout@rti.org.
* The author is military service member (or employee of the U.S. Government). This work was
prepared as part of my official duties. Title 17 U.S.C. 105 provides that 'Copyright protection
under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government.' Title 17 U.S.C.
10t defines a United States Government work as a work prepared by a military service
member or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties.
to assist in locating concealed illicit drugs or provide evidence
of drug handling. The Department of Defense (DoD) established
a training facility at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas for
military working dog training. This program utilizes special
training aids consisting of a ventilated canister (Figure 1) conraining
a paper packet (or bindle) of the target drug. The Naval
Criminal Investigative Service Regional Forensic Laboratory
(NCISRFL) in Norfolk, VA has been the sole producer of these
training aids for the Department of Defense. Because of the relatively
high numbers of training aids produced and the large
quantities of drugs handled, the potential for passive exposure
to illicit drug has been a concern at NCISRFL. To assess
the potential risk of exposure, urine analysis testing has been
conducted on Laboratory personnel since 1995. These tests
have been conducted by the Navy Drug Screening Laboratory
in Jacksonville, FL (NDSL-Jacksonville) since this monitoring
was implemented.
Personnel handling large quantities of illicit drugs (approximately
500 g at a time) in the preparation of drug detection
training aids are an ideal population to gather information
regarding the potential for passive exposure to illicit drugs.
This information is of importance to refute or support claims
that a positive urine analysis result (upon which legal action
might be taken) was the result of passive exposure. Additionally,
this is important to the interpretation of urine drug
testing results of law enforcement personnel unwittingly or
knowingly exposed to illicit drugs on the job.
Several investigations have examined the potential for cocaine
exposure in medical and occupational settings and have
demonstrated some exposure risk in handling cocaine (1-5).
Gelhausen et al. (4,5) conducted studies of cocaine exposure in
NCISRFL personnel producing cocaine-containing training
aids and found some potential for cocaine exposure that could
be mitigated by the use of personal protective equipment and
Laboratory chemical fume hoods. These results suggested that
inhalation of airborne cocaine particles was a primary exposure
route. However, exposure by touching the mouth, nose, and
eyes with contaminated fingers may also have been mitigated
by the use of personal protective equipment.
Reproduction (photocopying) of editorial content of this journal is prohibited without publisher's permission. 551

Journal of Analytical Toxicology, Vol. 30, October 2006
There is little evidence in the literature for potential passive
exposure to methamphetamine (MTH) to result in a positive
urinalysis. Significant problems or issues with illegal MTH production
and child welfare have been addressed (6,7), and use of
urine and hair testing to indicate the exposure of children to illicit
drug is often the foundation for removal of the children
from those environments. Most published work related to MTH
and occupational exposure details hazards of manufacturing byproducts
and hazardous materials handling (8).
The purpose of this study was to examine and report the urinalysis
results of NCISRFL staff who manufacture MTH-containing
training aids and to provide some indication of the
potential for passive exposure to MTH in producing positive
urine analysis results.
Methods
Manufacture of training aids
The manufacture of training aids consisted of four process
steps: grinding, weighing, stuffing, and sealing. Commercially
purchased D-MTH hydrochloride (Chattem Chemical, Chattanooga,
TN) samples in excess of the amount required for
preparation were ground into a fine powder using a mortar and
pestle. The MTH was then weighed into quantities of 1-5 g
using an analytical balance. These weighed samples were transferred
to or "stuffed" into pre-folded filter paper bindles and
stapled closed. The bindles were placed into 3-oz tin canisters
(Figure 1) and sealed with wire and a forensic lead disk.
Urine samples
During training aid preparation, NCISRFL staff urine samples
were collected throughout the day. Generally, urine samples
were collected from each technician at the beginning of the
shift, at mid-shift and at the end of each shift. Samples were
stored in secured refrigerators prior to shipment to NDSL-
Jacksonville for analysis. Samples were maintained under strict
chain of custody procedures from collection to analysis.
Sample preparation
Urine samples were analyzed by a solid-phase extraction
method previously described in Stout et al. (9). Briefly, samples
were extracted using SPEWare (San Pedro, CA) columns on a
Speedisk | 48 positive-pressure extraction manifold system.
Deuterated internal standards of AMP and MTH purchased
from Cerilliant (Round Rock, TX) were added to the samples
prior to extraction and derivatization. Samples were then analyzed
by a gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer operated in
electron-impact selected ion monitoring mode. The limit of
quantitation (LOQ) for these MTH analyses was approximately
15 ng/mL, and the limit of detection (LOD, defined as the
lowest concentration at which all ion ratios, chromatography,
and retention times were acceptable) was approximately 1
ng/mL MTH.
Results and Discussion
Table I summarizes the number of individuals tested, the
total number of samples analyzed and the distribution of the
times in the process that urine samples were collected. Of the
101 samples analyzed, slightly less than half were collected
prior to drug handling with 6 samples collected during processing
(representing 5 individuals). Table II presents the MTH
concentration of all 37 samples demonstrating the presence of
MTH. Ten samples had concentrations greater than the LOQ.
All samples presented in Table II were collected during or after
production of training aids with the exception of samples 1 and
4. These samples were collected from the individual who was
also responsible for the testing of the training aids and as such
had additional exposure potential outside of producing the
training aids. None of the samples contained any detectable
levels of AMP.
A solvent blank was injected between each NCISRFL sample,
and in all cases, the solvent blank did not demonstrate any
qualitative indication of MTH carry-over. Additionally, process
Table I. Summary of the Samples Collected in the Study
Period
Number
Figure 1. Training aid canister showing filter paper bindle and final canister
with lead seal.
Individuals tested 5
Total samples analyzed
10r
Samples collected before exposure 49
Samples collected during process 6
Samples collected after exposure (next day) 46
552

Journal of Analytical Toxicology, Vol. 30, October 2006
controls for the conversion of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine
to MTH during sample processing did not demonstrate any
MTH in any analysis. Therefore even at the very low concentrations
observed in these samples, MTH results were not artifactual.
A statistical summary of the positive results obtained from
collected samples is presented in Table III. Sample # 15 was notable
as it contained the maximum observed concentration of
MTH (262 ng/mL). This sample was collected at 0717 on the
day following manufacture operations and potential exposure
(approximately 16 h after the end of any activities the previous
day when the individual was stuffing the bindles with
ground MTH). The pre-processing sample taken from the same
individual the morning prior to manufacture operations had
no detectable MTH. No notable reasons for the high result
were determined.
Conclusions
Table II. All Samples Containing Detectable Methamphetamine from the
101 Samples Tested*
Sample Concentration Date Sample Concentration Date
Number (ng/mL) Collected Number (ng/mL) Collected
1 ~ 9.0 5/8/2002 20 9.1 8/25/2003
2 43 5/8/2002 21 9.4 10/31/2003
3 15 5/8/2002 22 3.8 10/31/2003
4 t 16 9/24/2002 23 9.3 10/31/2003
5 36 9/24/2002 24 11 10/31/2003
6 1.6 9/24/2002 25 6.5 1/28/2004
7 11 9/24/2002 26 22 1/28/2004
8 13 9/24/2002 27 24 1/28/2004
9 6.7 1/31/2003 28 27 1/28/2004
10 15 1/31/2003 29 3.0 6/15/2004
11 3.1 1/31/2003 30 2.3 6/15/2004
12 4.0 1/31/2003 31 10 6/15/2004
13 12 1/23/2003 32 11 6/15/2004
14 15 1/23/2003 33 2.6 6/15/2004
15 262 1/23/2003 34 10 9/9/2004
16 13 1/23/2003 35 5.4 9/9/2004
17 2.6 6/2/2003 36 10 9/9/2004
18 2.1 6/2/2003 37 12 9/9/2004
19 9.1 8/25/20o3
* Note that the limit of quantitation was 15 ng/mL, and the limit of detection was 1 ng/mL. Values less than 15
ng/mL are given because all chromatographic acceptance criteria were acceptable, indicating the presence
of MTH in the sample; however, the quantitative value is not reliable.
Samples were collected immediately prior to starting processing.
Table III. Summary Statistics of the Samples Collected
During and After Production of Training Aids Containing
Detectable Methamphetamine
Statistics for
Values above LOQ
Statistics with All
Values above LOD
Mean 48 ng/mL 13.7 ng/mL
Minimum 15 ng/mL 0 ng/mL
Maximum 262 ng/mL 262 ng/mL
Standard deviation 75 38.6
Number > LOQ (or ND) 10 35
During the preparation of drug detection dog training aids,
Laboratory personnel had both dermal and airborne contact
with MTH. This exposure may be considered analogous to the
handling of large (~ 500 g) quantities of MTH as might occur
for law enforcement personnel. The results of this study
demonstrated that very low levels of MTH are detectable in the
urine on the morning following exposure; however, these levels
were far below any regulatory cutoffs used in urine drug
testing, and AMP was not present. From these data, it appears
that exposure in a reasonably controlled environment (e.g.,
laboratory setting) to small quantities of MTH is not likely to
result in significant concentrations of MTH in urine.
For personnel whose job functions may take them into clandestine
MTH labs without personnel protective equipment,
exposure to MTH may present more of an
issue. Certainly, exposure to other chemical
hazards at such sites warrants the use of protective
equipment.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the
staff of NDSL-Jacksonville for their work in
analysis of the samples and the NCISRFL staff
for voluntarily providing the samples for this
study.
References
1. M.A. EISohly. Urinalysis and casual handling
of marijuana and cocaine. J. Anal. Toxicol.
15"46 (1991).
2. S.D. Le, R.W. Taylor, D. Vidal, J.J. Lovas, and
E. Ting. Occupational exposure to cocaine involving
crime lab personnel. J. Forensic Sci.
37:959-968 (1992).
3. L.S. Fitzmaurice, G.S. Wasserman, J,F. Knapp,
D.K. Roberts, J.F. Waeckerle, and M. Fox. TAC
use and absorption of cocaine in a pediatric
emergency department. Ann. Emerg. Med. 19"
515-518 (1990).
4. J.M. Gehlhausen, K.L. Klette, and J. Given.
Urine analysis of laboratory personnel preparing
training aids for a military working dog program.
J. Anal. Toxicol. 25" 637-640 (2001).
5. J.M. Gehlhausen, K.L. Klette, P.R. Stout, and J. Given. Occupational
cocaine exposure of crime laboratory personnel preparing
training aids for a military working dog program. J. AnaL Toxicol.
27:453-458 (2003).
6. D. Lewis, C. Moore, P. Morrissey, and J. Leikin. Determination of
drug exposure using hair: application to child protective cases.
Forensic ScL Int. 84:123-128 (1997).
7. M. Hohman, R. Oliver, and W. Wright. Methamphetamine abuse
and manufacture: the child welfare response. Soc. Work 49:
373-381 (2004).
8. D.K. Horton, Z. Berkowitz, and W.E. Kaye. Secondary contamination
of ED personnel from hazardous materials events,
1995-2001. Am. J. Ernerg. Med. 21 : 199-204 (2003).
553