Methamphetamine residue dermal transfer efficiencies from household surfaces.

Methamphetamine contamination from illegal production operations poses a potential health concern for emergency responders, child protective services, law enforcement, and children living in contaminated structures. The objective of this study was to evaluate dermal transfer efficiencies of methamphetamine from contaminated household surfaces. These transfer efficiencies are lacking for methamphetamine, and would be beneficial for use in exposure models. Surfaces were contaminated using a simulated smoking method in a stainless steel chamber. Household surfaces were carpet, painted drywall, and linoleum. Dermal transfer efficiencies were obtained using cotton gloves for two hand conditions, dry or saliva moistened (wet). In addition, three contact scenarios were evaluated for both hand conditions: one, two, or three contacts with contaminated surfaces. Dermal transfer efficiencies were calculated for both hand conditions and used as inputs in a Stochastic Human Exposure and Dose Simulation model (SHEDS-Multimedia, Office of Research and Development, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.). Results of this study showed that average dermal transfer efficiencies of methamphetamine ranged from 11% for dry hands to 26% for wet hands. There was a significantly higher wet transfer as compared to dry transfer for all surfaces. For wet hands, dermal transfer depended on surface type with higher transfer from carpet and linoleum as compared to drywall. Based on our estimates of dermal transfer efficiency, a surface contamination clearance level of 1.5 µg/100 cm(2) may not ensure absorbed doses remain below the level associated with adverse health effects in all cases. Additional dermal transfer studies should be performed using skin surrogates that may better predict actual skin transfer.

Potential exposures associated with indoor marijuana growing operations.

We entered a total of 30 indoor marijuana grow operations (IMGO) with law enforcement investigators in order to determine potential exposures to first responders. Samples for airborne fungal spores, volatile organic compounds, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) were obtained as well as the identification of chemicals utilized in the IMGO. The chemicals utilized within the IMGOs were primarily pesticides and fertilizers with none showing high toxicity. Although several of the IMGOs had CO2 enrichment processes involving combustion, CO levels were not elevated. THC levels were identified on surfaces within the IMGOs and on the hands of the investigators. Surface levels ranged from <0.1 µg /100 cm(2) to 2000 µg /100 cm(2) with a geometric mean of 0.37 µg /100 cm(2). THC levels on the hands of officers ranged from <0.10 µg /wipe to 2900 µg /wipe with a geometric mean of 15 µg /wipe. These levels were not considered to be elevated to the point of causing a toxic exposure to responders. A total of 407 fungal spore samples were taken using both slit impactor plates and 400-hole impactors. Both methods identified elevated fungal spore levels, especially during the removal of plants from some of the IMGOs. After plant removal, spore counts increased to levels above 50,000 spores/m(3) with one sample over 500,000 spores/m(3). In addition, we found that there was a shift in species between indoor and outdoor samples with Cladosporium sp. the predominant outdoor species and Penicillium sp. the predominant indoor species. We concluded that the potential increase in fungal spore concentrations associated with the investigation and especially removal of the marijuana plants could potentially expose responders to levels of exposure consistent with those associated with mold remediation processes and that respiratory protection is advisable.

Decontamination of clothing and building materials associated with the clandestine production of methamphetamine.

This study was designed to determine how easily methamphetamine can be removed from clothing and building materials, utilizing different cleaning materials and methods. The study also addressed the penetration of methamphetamine into drywall and the ability of paints to encapsulate the methamphetamine on drywall. Clothing and building materials were contaminated in a stainless steel chamber by aerosolizing methamphetamine in a beaker heater. The amount of methamphetamine surface contamination was determined by sampling a grid pattern on the material prior to attempting to clean the materials. After cleaning, the materials were again sampled, and the degree of decontamination noted. We found that household clothing and response gear worn by first responders was easily decontaminated using a household detergent in a household washing machine. A single wash removed over 95% of the methamphetamine from these materials. The study also indicated that methamphetamine-contaminated, smooth non-porous surfaces can be easily cleaned to below detectable levels using only mild cleaners. More porous surfaces such as plywood and drywall were unlikely to be decontaminated to below regulatory levels even with three washes using a mild cleaner. This may be due to methamphetamine penetration into the paint on these surfaces. Evaluation of methamphetamine contamination on drywall indicated that approximately 40% of the methamphetamine was removed using a wipe, while another 60% remained in the paint layer. Stronger cleaners such as those with active ingredients including sodium hypochlorite or quaternary ammonia and commercial decontamination agents were more effective than mild detergent-based cleaners and may reduce methamphetamine contamination to below regulatory levels. Results from the encapsulation studies indicate that sprayed on oil-based paint will encapsulate methamphetamine on drywall and plywood surfaces up to 4.5 months, while latex paints were less effective.

Variability and specificity associated with environmental methamphetamine sampling and analysis.

This study was designed to explore the efficacy of the use of wipe sampling to determine methamphetamine contamination associated with the clandestine manufacture of methamphetamine. Three laboratories were utilized to analyze wipe samples to investigate variability in reported methamphetamine concentration among samples spiked with known amounts of methamphetamine. Different sampling media, surfaces, and solvents were also utilized to determine potential differences in measured methamphetamine concentration due to different wipes, wipe solvents, and wipe contaminants. This study examined rate of false positive detection among blank samples and whether interference with common household substances would create a false positive detection of methamphetamine. Variability between the three labs-using liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry or gas chromatography with mass spectrometry for detection of a known concentration of methamphetamine-resulted in percent differences of 3-30%. Results from wipe sample analysis for methamphetamine, using methanol or isopropanol, showed no significant difference in methamphetamine contamination recovery. Dust and paint contamination on methamphetamine wipe samples with known methamphetamine spike amounts did not affect methamphetamine wipe sample recovery. This study confirmed that either methanol or isopropanol is an appropriate solvent for use in methamphetamine wipe sampling. Dust and paint contamination on wipe samples will not interfere with the wipe sample analysis for methamphetamine. False positive detection for methamphetamine was not observed in any of the blank wipe samples submitted for the study. Finally, this study determined that methamphetamine will not be detected in structures that are truly methamphetamine free at current laboratory limits of quantification.