Advisor(s)

Jason Linville

Committee Member(s)

Curt Harper
Jasmine Maxwell

Document Type

Thesis

Date of Award

6-2-2026

Degree Name

Master of Science in Forensic Science (MSFS)

School

College of Arts and Sciences

Department

Criminal Justice

Abstract

Oral fluid (OF) has been determined comparable to blood while being a more accurate specimen to reflect recent use than urine. OF roadside testing devices utilize the ease of access and toxicological information provided by OF. These devices are designed to be used as a roadside screening device that can detect the presence of drugs. In 2018, Alabama was the first state in America to implement a comprehensive state OF drug testing program for screening and laboratory testing. At the current moment, there are five approved devices for use in Alabama. Part of the development of the program involved evaluating the OF devices to determine their reliability for use at the roadside by law enforcement. This involved testing the cutoff concentrations and the devices on real subjects. As more drugs are developed, knowing the extent of what the devices can test for becomes significant. Each OF device has a set target drug, but other drugs of the same class could possibly react due to similar chemical structures, causing cross-reactivity. The DrugWipe 5 S cross-reacted with Δ9-THC-O, Δ8-THC, and 9R hexahydrocannabinol (HHC) while the DrugWipe 6 S cross-reacted with Δ9-THC-O, Δ8-THC, bromazolam, desalkylgidazepam, phenazolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazepam. The Dräger Drug Check 3000 (DDC3000) cross-reacted with the same cannabinoids along with (6aR, 9R) Δ10-THC, (6aR, 9S) Δ10-THC, Δ9-THC-P, Δ8-THC-P, Δ8-THC-O, 9S HHC, and cannabidiol. These results can help law enforcement decide which roadside device is more appropriate. A study on the effects of temperature was repeated for the OF collection device, Quantisal, and the DDC3000 and DrugWipes. The performance of the DrugWipes and DDC3000 showed no difference in results after being stored in the cooler, at room temperature, and in the trunk of a car for up to 30 days. The Quantisal device had the best stability for samples when stored in the cooler. The condition that the Quantisal devices were stored in did seem to affect the buffer solution and the concentration of cannabinoid samples. These results demonstrate the importance of storing the devices at the appropriate temperatures and submitting them to a forensic laboratory in a timely manner.

Keywords

Drug Check 3000;DrugWipe;Oral Fluid Screening Devices;Quantisal;Robustness;Stability

Download

Share

COinS