Air Quality Inside Police Drug Safes and Drug Storage Areas.

Storage of drug-based evidence inside sealed safes may allow chemical vapors to accumulate, creating concerns of drug exposure by inhalation, or the possibility of cross-contamination of drug evidence. Air samples were taken from inside eight drug safes and one small storage room at nine city and country police stations, as well as a large centralized drug evidence storage vault, in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Sorbent tubes containing charcoal were used to determine whether any drug residues could be detected in the air, and to identify the types of chemicals present. Carbon traps were extracted and analyzed by LC-MS-MS for a suite of 22 licit and illicit drug residues and 2 metabolites. Carbon traps and SPME fibers were also analyzed by GC-MS for general volatile organic compound (VOC) residues. No detectable drug residues, either as airborne dust or vapor, were found in the safes, the storage room or the large central repository vault. No drugs were detected in any of the 34 urine samples collected at 8 of the 10 sampling locations, while only one of the five hair samples was positive for cocaine (9 pg/mg) provided by police exhibit officers at 3 of the 10 sampling locations. VOC analysis identified a variety of solvents associated with drug manufacture, plasticisers, personal care products and volatiles associated with plants such as cannabis. The results indicate that strong chemical odours emanating from drug safes are unlikely to be drug residues due to low volatility of drugs, and are more likely VOCs associated with their manufacture or from plant growing operations. Consideration should be given to the quality of air flow in rooms in which safes are housed and the use of air filtering inside safes to reduce the likelihood of VOC accumulation, and therefore the risk of human exposure.

The presence of licit and illicit drugs in police stations and their implications for workplace drug testing.

The presence of licit and illicit drug residues on surfaces was studied in 10 police stations and a central drug evidence store in New South Wales, Australia, with the results compared to similar surfaces in four public buildings (to establish a community baseline). The results of almost 850 workplace surface swabs were also compared to the outcome of drug analysis in urine and hair samples volunteered by police officers. Surfaces were swabbed with alcohol and the swabs were extracted and analysed by LC-MS/MS. Low level concentrations of the more commonly used drugs were detected at four public sites and one restricted access police office facility. Surface swabs taken in 10 city and country police stations yielded positive results for a broader suite of drugs than at background sites however 75-93% of the positive drug results detected in police stations were below 40ng, which is only slightly greater than the largest background result measured in the current study. This study indicates that contamination issues are more likely to be focussed in higher risk areas in police stations, such as counters and balances in charge areas, and surfaces within drug safes although front reception counters also returned surface contamination. All 64 urine samples collected in this study were negative, while only 2 of the 11 hair samples collected from donors resulted in trace concentrations for cocaine, but not its metabolite benzoylecgonine. Positive hair samples were only obtained from police donors in very high risk jobs, indicating that the exposure risk is low. Minor changes to the materials used as work surfaces, and some procedural changes in police stations and large evidence stores are suggested to decrease the likelihood of drugs contaminating work surfaces, thereby reducing the potential exposure of police officers to drugs in the workplace.

Work place drug testing of police officers after THC exposure during large volume cannabis seizures.

Police officers responsible for the seizure and removal of illegally grown cannabis plants from indoor and outdoor growing operations face the prospect of THC exposure while performing their work duties. As a result, a study investigating the amount of THC on hands and uniforms of officers during raids on cannabis growing houses (CGHs) and forest cannabis plantations (FCPs) and in the air at these sites was conducted. Swabs of gloves/hands, chests, and heads/necks were collected and analysed for THC. Results of hand swabs indicated that officers removing plants from FCPs were exposed to THC concentrations up to 20 times those involved in raids at CGHs, which was mainly associated with the number and size of plants seized. Air samples collected inside cannabis houses showed no detectable THC. Air samples collected inside the cargo area of the storage trucks used during FCP raids indicated that THC can be volatilised when lush plants are compressed by other seized plants loaded on top of them in the truck over a period of several days, allowing composting of plants at the bottom of the load to commence. The elevated temperature and humidity inside the truck may assist the decarboxylation of THCA to THC, as well as increasing the rate of volatilisation of THC. More than 100 urine samples were collected from officers in raids on both CGHs and FCPs and all tested negative for THC. Removal of cannabis plants by officers often resulted in cuts, abrasions and ruptured blisters on exposed skin surfaces, particularly at FCPs. The results in this study suggest that even when small areas of damaged skin are directly exposed to THC by contact transfer, the likelihood of showing a positive THC urine test is low.