RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
Evidence-based evaluation of the analytical schemes in ASTM E2329-17 Standard Practice for Identification of Seized Drugs for methamphetamine samples
Triplett, J. S., Salyards, J., Rodriguez-Cruz, S. E., Morris, J. A., Creel, D. V., Zemmels, J., & Grabenauer, M. (2024). Evidence-based evaluation of the analytical schemes in ASTM E2329-17 Standard Practice for Identification of Seized Drugs for methamphetamine samples. Forensic Chemistry, 38, Article 100560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forc.2024.100560
This study involved 71 forensic seized drug laboratories analyzing 65 total samples; 17 were ground-truth positive (i.e., they contained methamphetamine or cocaine); 48 were ground-truth negative (i.e., they did not contain methamphetamine or cocaine). The positive samples were prepared at several target-analyte concentrations and combined with common cutting agents. The negative samples were designed to be challenging and prepared to contain positional isomers of methamphetamine. Participants were sent two different sample sets. In the first, they were directed to only use a single, pre-selected analytical technique. In the second, they were directed to use a pre-selected analytical scheme consisting of multiple techniques in compliance with ASTM E2329-17. The results of the study showed good accuracy; sensitivity was 1.000 for all analytical schemes with 1-specificity (the false-positive rate) ranging from 0.000 to 0.250 when ASTM E2329-17 compliant analytical schemes were used. When only a single technique was used, accuracy was generally not as good; sensitivity ranged from 1.000 to 0.091, and 1-specificity ranged from 0.000 to 0.245.
