» urine vs saliva testing
The use of urine screening devices vs Saliva devices is currently the topic of much debate. There are benefits and short-fallings for each method.
| ISSUE | URINE | SALIVA |
|---|---|---|
| Australian Standard | Australian Standard 4308. Testing that has been performed to this standard has been used successfully in legal situations. | Australian Standard 4760 Procedures for specimen collection and detection and quantitation of drugs in oral fluid. |
| Accuracy | The d:tec brand of on-site screening kits has a 99% sensitivity and specificity record (in-house data). | The Oral Fluid Screening kits on the Australian market have differing accuracy, sensitivities and specificities as demonstrated by independent studies, ie Rosita 2. |
| Impairment Testing | Drug concentrations can not be related to impairment on either saliva or urine. Positive results are indicative of exposure and therefore relatively recent drug use. | Drug concentrations can not be related to impairment on either saliva or urine. Saliva has a shorter window of picking up positive results however. |
| Confirmations | The sample can be sent to one of the many accredited Toxicology Laboratories for confirmation by GC/MS as per the Australian Standard. | A urine sample is often still sent for confirmation by many organisations due to the very limited numbers of laboratories able to perform saliva confirmations. |
| Cost effectiveness | Urine testing is still the most cost effective way to test in the workplace for Drugs of Abuse. On-site screening means that only positive samples need to be sent to the lab, but lab screening is equally cost effective. | Saliva testing is still generally more expensive per test than urine testing. |
| Ease of sample collection | Whilst some people complain about intrusiveness and embarrassment, most are not fussed by Urine collection. Samples are not witnessed, and they are tested by professional people who are sympathetic to not embarrassment for employees. Occasionally someone cannot produce a sample, so other people are tested in the meantime. Urine is not as serious a biological sample as saliva is. | Samples are easily collected, yet some saliva testing kits can leave unpleasant tastes in the employees mouth due to saliva stimulating agents (which can also reduce concentration of drug in saliva by causing a more dilute sample). Sample collection can take up to 20 minutes, and be uncomfortable. Saliva is a significant biological hazard. |
| Ease of use | Easy to use and read. | Generally fairly easy to use, but needs more care due to possible biologically hazardous substance. |
| Adulteration possibility | If collection is done according to the Australian Standard 4308 then there should be very little opportunity for sample adulteration. | There is very little chance of sample adulteration during saliva collection. |
d:tec can offer a range of Oral Fluid testing products as directed by clients. We employ and obtain advice from qualified scientist in regards to this matter constantly. We feel that at this stage, however, there is not a product on the market with suitable reliability, precision and sensitivity to perform accurate oral fluid tests as stated by AS4760 and reinforced by independent studies like "Rosita 2". All of the above issues will however need to be taken in to account by any company who wants to begin drug testing in their workplace.