White Paper: Fingerprint-based drug test helps airport and border control teams combat body packing

Addressing the challenge of airline drug smuggling via body packing

Governments across the world work to stop harmful drugs entering their countries, with border force officials focusing on preventing drugs being smuggled in and reaching the streets. The role of airport security staff is particularly important here, especially as international smuggling gangs frequently use drug mules – often referred to as body packers – to carry illegal drugs inside their bodies on airline flights as a means of avoiding customs detection.

Body packing is an established means of smuggling drugs, first occurring in the early 1970s and becoming more and more prevalent. It’s a form of drug smuggling that specifically involves the swallowing or insertion of drugfilled packs inside the body. Primarily involving cocaine or heroin, the process involves considerable risk for the person involved, particularly due to the risk of acute drug toxicity resulting from a pack splitting or drug seepage.

Body packers typically swallow or insert between 50-100 drug-filled packets weighing around 10g each, concealing them in their intestinal tract. Carrying such large quantities of drugs inside their bodies can clearly lead to serious medical problems, including acute drug toxicity as well as complications such as bowel obstruction, bowel perforation and peritonitis. Unless addressed immediately, these conditions can prove either life-threatening or fatal.

Moving quickly to identify body packers at airports

Body packing is a real concern for airport and border control staff – not just because it is a widespread way of smuggling drugs, but also because of the potentially fatal risk of acute drug toxicity it poses to mules – should a drug packet split or seep internally.

For early body packers the process was highly dangerous, largely due to the failure of packing approaches such as condoms, latex gloves and balloons. Drug mule mortality rates were high, however high-quality latex packaging has now significantly reduced the chance of rupture, and increased the challenge for airport customs officials to identify body packers.

While airport and border control staff are trained to look for some of the indicators of body packing that can result from opioid toxicity – such as depressed mental status, lower respiration rates and constricted pupils, these aren’t always easy to spot. In reality, intelligence proves a key factor in drug mule identification – ideally potential body packers are highlighted before they even have a chance to board a plane. However, if border control staff have intelligence that a drug mule could be arriving on a particular flight, it’s important to have a way of moving quickly to confirm or rule out suspicions before they can pass through border control and enter a country.

Suspected body packers are typically sent to hospital for imaging investigations in order to confirm the presence of drugs in the body. Until now airport customs staff had to rely on traditional body fluid tests such as urine, which typically required specially prepared testing facilities, in order to gather intelligence on whether a passenger might be a drug mule. Urine tests can be costly to administer and take longer to screen potential drug users, making it a complex process for airport staff – and also potentially introducing delays into what could be a critical timeline for body packers.

Our White Paper addresses the challenge of airline drug smuggling via body packing and examines how fingerprint drug testing is being used to help to tackle the issue:

Viewpoint: Safer, Socially Distant Drug Testing For Schools

Fingerprint-based drug screening enables social distancing for both staff and pupils when testing, while also offering a more hygienic and dignified approach.

Most schools already operate a zero-tolerance approach to drug abuse, with clear policies stating that the supply, possession or use of drugs is unacceptable and not permitted on school premises, when wearing the school uniform or when representing the school. For some less serious cases, with mitigating circumstances for example, a head teacher may decide to suspend a pupil or issue a final warning, however the normal sanction for possession, use or supply of drugs is expulsion.

While schools may look to their PSHE (Personal, Social, Health and Economic) education activities to help raise and discuss potential drug abuse issues, they also recognise the need for a more proactive approach with suspected pupil drug use. Within their drug and alcohol policies, schools usually declare the right to ask pupils under suspicion to take a test and traditionally this typically means using a urine or saliva-based method.

Understandably, much of a school’s current health focus will be taken up with COVID-19 detection and testing. However, it is still essential to ensure adherence to school drug policies throughout the pandemic and beyond. Not surprisingly, traditional types of drug tests have proved difficult for organisations to administer under COVID-19 social distancing guidelines.

Depending on the type of drug test used, ensuring safe and hygienic drug testing during the pandemic is proving to be an increasingly complex challenge for organisations of all sizes. Adhering to the government’s guidance on social distancing, minimising time spent in close contact with others and wearing face coverings in an enclosed space, is difficult with traditional drug testing methods. Oral fluid tests require the collection of an individual’s saliva in close proximity, with no mask, while urine drug tests also involve the handling of messy and biohazardous samples.

Introducing a socially-distant drug testing approach for schools

In this situation, a much simpler and safer approach to drug testing would be useful. One that’s quick and hygienic and that will allow schools to enable social distancing for both staff and pupils during use. The portable Intelligent Fingerprinting drug screening system directly addresses this requirement. Fingerprint-based drug testing is quick and easy to use and can be completed while fully adhering to social distancing guidelines – maintaining the safety of both the tester and the pupil. It is a really simple and hygienic process as both parties can remain socially distant at all times. Pupils can self-administer their own fingerprint sample collection, while always keeping at least 2m away from the tester.

Socially-distant drug testing for schools – how it works

To begin, the pupil takes the fingerprint drug screening cartridge from its wrapper, presses all ten fingerprints in succession onto the sample collection pad, and then slides the tamper-evident locking cover across to protect the sample. The pupil then steps away to allow the staff member to collect the cartridge and insert it into a small, portable reader that analyses the test cartridge and provides a positive or negative screening result for each drug in the test in just 10 minutes.

The fingerprint collection approach is both dignified and hygienic, with no need for intrusive oral swabs or messy urine sample collection. This removes the need for close face-to-face contact and there’s no requirement for testers to handle biohazardous body fluids. In addition, because the process doesn’t require an oral swab, face masks can be worn throughout the process.

A more cost-effective approach to drug testing

Using in-house fingerprint-based testing instead of more traditional approaches such as urine testing can also unlock significant savings for schools. Immediate efficiency savings include being able to carry out testing quickly and easily within a classroom or an office. There’s also no longer any need to cordon off toilet facilities to dedicate their use to urine sample collection. In addition, because the system is portable and simple to use, schools can run their testing programme themselves in a safe and convenient location at their convenience and as required.

This in-house benefit also removes the need and risk of bringing external testing providers into the school if a test is required, and enables greater flexibility when tests need to be conducted quickly if the school has reason to suspect the use of drugs or substances. The fingerprint test’s ease-ofuse and rapid results can also make it a useful addition to support PHSE sessions around drug abuse. Similarly, using the system for educational or deterrent purposes can assist as part of a school’s proactive drug abuse policy.

To read the article, please click on the image below:

Viewpoint Schools Drug Testing PDF Thumbnail

Journal of Analytical Toxicology: Drug screening using the sweat of a fingerprint

Drug screening using the sweat of a fingerprint: lateral flow detection of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol, cocaine, opiates and amphetamine

New research published in the Journal of Analytical Toxicology shows how fingerprint-based drug screening can not only screen for the presence, or absence, of four classes of drugs of abuse, but that the technology also works when used by UK coroners to detect drugs in the sweat of fingerprint samples gathered from deceased individuals.

Read the article:

Drug Screening using the sweat of a fingerprint: Lateral flow detection of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol, cocaine, opiates and amphetamine
Hudson M., Stuchinskaya T., Ramma S., Patel J., Sievers C., Goetz S., Hines S., Menzies E., & Russell D. A.
Journal of Analytical Toxicology (2018), 10.1093/jat/bky068

 

Transport Operator: Drug screening for 21st century transport, written by Dr Paul Yates

Dr Paul Yates, business development director at Intelligent Fingerprinting, examines how the advent of fingerprint-based testing technology could help tackle drug-driving.

Drug driving was thrown into the spotlight in the UK when new legislation was introduced inMarch 2015, making it unlawful to drive with eight illegal drugs and eight prescription drugs in the body above a specified level.

As a result, police officers can use a Home Office—approved ‘drugalyser’ to screen for cannabis and cocaine at the roadside, and screen for other illegal drugs, including ecstasy, LSD, ketamine and heroin, at the police station.

Since the legislation came into being, half of drivers stopped for suspected drug driving have tested positive, leading to 7,796 arrests for drug driving in England and Wales between March 2015 and April 2016.

Drivers who consume cannabis, the most commonly used illegal drug among UK adults, are two to six times more likely to have a road traffic collision than those who don’t and, if combined with alcohol, that risk rises to 16 times.

Amphetamines and methamphetamines may not be as widely used as cannabis, but the risk of a collision following consumption is higher than either cannabis or cocaine. In Great Britain it is estimated that drug driving accounts for up to 200 deaths every year.

Transport operators need to take action to minimise risk and safeguard themselves, their workforce and the general public against drug driving by their employees.

In an effort to deter employee drug use, many transport companies have introduced
drug and alcohol policies, including screening protocols and procedures. These policies form part of an employee’s obligations.

An active policy which discourages drug use by employees and identifies potential issues early can be invaluable. However, a 2014 report from road safety charity Brake showed that more than half (57 per cent) of employers with staff that drive for work do not test for drugs.

In many cases, workplace drug screening policies apply to all employees, but more typically it is employees in safety—critical roles such as drivers who are subject to drug testing.

Screening can take place as part of pre—employment checks, after an accident or with reasonable suspicion of drug use, or randomly. According to the Brake report, the most common form of screening is random testing, used by 29 percent of employers.

The most widely used drug screening methods to provide evidence of recent drug use involve analysis of urine, oral fluid (saliva) or, less commonly blood samples. Of these methods urine is the most widely used by fleet providers.

Current drug screening methods have their limitations. Collection of invasive body fluids for drug testing is costly, time—consuming and difficult to administer on—site because of the need to set up specially prepared collection areas and provide trained, often gender— specific, collectors on site as well as specialist waste disposal facilities.

Intelligent Fingerprinting is developing what is thought to be the world’s first portable, fingerprint—based drug screening system. The system works by analysing fingerprint sweat to
detect drug metabolites, which are chemicals produced by the body when it processes
(metabolises) drugs of abuse.

The new drug screen requires the collection of a single fingerprint sample for analysis and detection of up to four drugs of abuse in one test. Collection of the fingerprint sample onto the test cartridge takes a few seconds and the cartridge is then inserted into a reader.

The reader analyses the fingerprint sweat for drug metabolites, providing a positive or negative result in less than 10 minutes and giving a simple pass or fail reading against pre—determined drug screening cut—off levels. The device automatically measures drug concentration against these
cut—offs without the need for the operator to read test strip results or similar.

As the reader is portable, samples can be collected on—site for on—the—spot fitness for duty tests. Unlike body fluid drug screening, the test is completely non—invasive and presents no biohazard risk, so there is no need for specialist collection or sample disposal facilities.

The unique fingerprint—based drug screen is quick and easy to use, and fully portable.
These benefits could result in an overall improvement in the effectiveness of the drug policies of fleet providers, in particular allowing truly random tests that discourage drug use whilst reducing the costs associated with the implementation of conventional body fluid drug screening solutions.

While drug—driving conviction rates hit the headlines and awareness of the prevalence of drug—driving continues to grow, many transport operators will no doubt be reviewing their HR processes to ensure their employee drug and alcohol policies are fit for purpose.

New emerging technologies such as the Intelligent Fingerprinting drug screening system can help to respect an employee’s requirements for privacy and dignity, while protecting their colleagues and
ensuring public safety.

Download pdf: Transport Operator Feature  (By kind permission of Transport Operator.)

SHP Online: Drug screening – creating a safer workplace, written by Dr Paul Yates

The ability to implement an effective workplace drug screening programme is a critical part of any policy dealing with drug use in the workplace.  Conventional point-of-care drug testing systems require collection of an invasive sample such as urine or saliva, presenting a biohazard risk that often requires trained staff, specially prepared collection areas and clinical waste disposal.

Intelligent Fingerprinting’s fingerprint-based drug test provides a non-invasive drug screening solution which is quick and easy to use, with no need for specialist collection arrangements or chilled sample storage. Compact and portable, the Intelligent Fingerprinting Drug Screening System tests for multiple drug groups in less than 10 minutes.

Writing for SHP Online, Dr Paul Yates, business development director at Intelligent Fingerprinting, examines the role workplace drug screening plays in reducing the health and safety risks associated with drug misuse.

Read the article at SHP Online

Rail Professional: A modern approach, written by Dr Paul Yates

Writing for Rail Professional, Dr Paul Yates considers how new fingerprint-based, non-invasive drug screening technology could facilitate drug testing in the rail industry.

Drug use is more common among the UK workforce than you may think. According to figures from the Home Office, last year one in 12 working age adults (16-59) took an illicit drug (1). Department of Health figures show that almost one in 10 of the UK workforce admits to recent drug use (2). And a survey of medium to large-sized firms revealed that drugs and alcohol contribute to 26 per cent of workplace accidents which cost the UK £4 billion every year (3).

It is an offence for rail employees to carry out, and for railway employers to allow employees to carry out, safety-critical work while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. This legislation is set out in Section 27 of the Transport and Works Act 1992, and is enforced by the British Transport Police (4). The term ‘drugs’ includes controlled drugs, often referred to as ‘prohibited’ or ‘illicit’ drugs or ‘drugs of abuse’. The term also includes other substances which can affect a person’s ability to perform their duties, including prescribed and over-the-counter medicines (5). The term ‘safety-critical’ does not just apply to driving trains, but to tasks performed throughout the rail industry by rail workers, signalling staff and many others. Drug misuse can be difficult to detect, with one in three UK employers saying they cannot identify when a worker is under the influence of drugs (6). In a safety-critical working environment such as the rail industry, screening to detect drug abuse is particularly important. Increasingly, even those employees who do not have safetycritical duties are expected to undergo drug testing (7).

As anyone working in the industry knows, passengers’ and colleagues’ lives depend on the alertness of railway employees, and being under the influence of drugs or alcohol can have catastrophic consequences. A public inquiry into the Cannon Street Station rail crash of 1991, in which two people were killed and over 500 injured, blamed the accident on driver error and ageing rolling stock(8). For reasons which were never established, the 25-year old driver, Maurice Graham, failed to brake properly causing the train to crash into the buffers, with tragic results. A drug test three days after the crash revealed traces of cannabis in Graham’s blood. And, while the inquiry found there was insufficient evidence to suggest that drug use had caused the accident, the inquiry report recommended the introduction of mandatory drug and alcohol tests for employees involved in safety accidents and called for the criminalisation of railway employees with safety responsibilities being impaired by alcohol or drugs. At the time of the accident it was illegal for railway staff to be under the influence of alcohol but there was no equivalent law for drugs. The inquiry’s recommendations were implemented through the passing of The Transport and Works Act 1992.

Pre-employment and random or unannounced screening can act as a deterrent to drug use. Drug testing is also used post-incident to investigate whether employees are culpable. Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) guidance advises that managers should periodically test staff carrying out safety-critical tasks. This should include both pre-planned testing as part of a periodic age-related medical and random or unannounced testing(9). RSSB advises that managers should test all persons appointed to posts involving safety-critical tasks before they first undertake them (9).

RSSB recommends that managers determine which drugs they should screen for based on a range of factors. These factors include whether a reasonably practicable test exists, the likelihood of a drug or type of drug being taken and the ability of a drug to impair work performance(9).

Strengths and limitations of existing drug tests

The most common drug screening methods involve analysis of urine, oral fluid (saliva), hair or blood samples. Of these methods, urine testing is the most widely used by train companies. With a usual detection window of up to two to four days, urine tests are low-cost but have the potential to be cheated using urine substitutes or adulterants. Oral fluid (saliva) testing is less invasive, and it has a shorter window of detection of up to one to two days but samples can also be adulterated. Hair testing provides the longest detection window, detecting drug use for up to three months previously depending on the length of hair tested. However, hair testing cannot give any indication of recent drug use. Blood testing is the most accurate way of confirming recent drug usage but it is also the most expensive and time-consuming, requiring sample collection by a qualified phlebotomist and laboratory analysis.

Most drug screening methods rely on the invasive collection of biohazardous body-fluid samples. This can prove costly, time-consuming and, for urine (the most commonly used test), difficult to administer. This is because of the need for trained, gender-specific collectors, specially prepared collection areas and specialist waste disposal facilities. Some of these methods also raise issues about respecting the privacy of the employee or potential employee being tested. For example, urine sample collections are usually observed to prevent sample adulteration or substitution, which can be undignified for both the employee and the observer.

The different issues associated with existing drug screening methods can reduce the rail manager’s ability to carry out effective drug screening and these drawbacks are most evident for random or unannounced screening where testing must be spontaneous and immediate in order to deter and detect drug use. It is clear that current drug screening methods have their limitations and an alternative, simpler and less invasive approach would improve drug screening programmes. Desirable drug test attributes would be a quick, safe and noninvasive collection method that is portable and easy to administer, with immediate and reliable test results.

New technology in development

We believe a new approach, developed in Britain, has the potential to change the way drug screening is carried out. The technology, brought to the market by Intelligent Fingerprinting, works by analysing fingerprint sweat to detect drug metabolites, the chemicals that are produced after a drug breaks down in the body. The fingerprint sample is collected within seconds, by simply pressing the finger onto a collection cartridge which is then inserted into a reader. The reader analyses the sweat in the fingerprint, providing a pass or fail for different drug groups in less than 10 minutes. It’s the world’s first portable, fingerprint-based drug screening system and presents the opportunity to screen for multiple drugs of abuse in one test.

This emerging technology could help the rail industry to keep up with increased drug prevalence among the UK workforce, and the accompanying regulations surrounding drug misuse in safety-critical areas. The rail industry can use new technology to respect workers’ requirements of privacy and dignity, while protecting employer liability and helping to ensure public safety. Drug screening programmes for the rail industry have the potential to become more cost-efficient and effective, serving as a true deterrent to drug use.

Paul Yates is business development director at Intelligent Fingerprinting.

References: 1. The Home Office, Drug Misuse: Findings from the 2014/15 Crime Survey for England and Wales (2015) 2. Department of Health, United Kingdom drug situation: annual report to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) 2012. http://www.cph.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2013/03/23779-FOCAL-POINT-REPORT2012-B5.pdf 3. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development research: http://realbusiness.co.uk/article/26589- drugs-in-the-workplace-a-4bn-problem-thatemployers-ignore 4. Section 27 of the Transport & Works Act 1992 5. RSSB: Guidance on the Management of Drugs and Alcohol Issue two: December 2012 Rail Industry Guidance Note for GO/RT8070 (2012), p. 9. 6. Synergy Health survey: survey of 200 medium to large sized covering approximately 26,000 employees (2014): http://realbusiness.co.uk/ article/26589-drugs-in-the-workplace-a-4bnproblem-that-employers-ignore 7. Simon Robinson, Not a risk worth taking (2015): http://www.railpro.co.uk/railpro-magazine/ magazine-archives/june-2015/not-a-risk-worthtaking 8. HM Railway Inspectorate, A report of the collision that occurred on 8 January 1991 at Cannon Street Station (1992): http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/ docsummary.php?docID=177 9. RSSB Guidance on the Management of Drugs and Alcohol (2012).

Rail Professional September 2016

(Permission to publish this PDF kindly provided by Rail Professional.)

Prof David Russell: Selected Publications

Our Founder and Chief Scientific Officer, Prof David Russell, has published a number of research papers relating to the detection of drugs and drug metabolites in fingerprint sweat:

The Billboard Magazine: Prototype Fingerprint Sweat Drug Testing Device

April’s issue of The Billboard, the definitive magazine for UK police forces, includes a feature by Intelligent Fingerprinting’s Dr Paul Yates about the company’s prototype hand-held device for detecting illegal drug use through analysis of fingerprint sweat.

The Billboard April 2012. (Permission provided by publisher.)

 

The Gazette of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police: drug detection from fingerprints, by Dr Paul Yates

Intelligent Fingerprinting’s Dr Paul Yates writes for The Gazette about Intelligent Fingerprinting’s handheld device for detecting drug metabolites in fingerprints and its potential uses within the fields of policing, border control, national security and institutional testing.

Download the article (permission provided by publisher): RCMP Gazette April 2012