Welcome to CDC stacks | Detection of 5–fluorouracil surface contamination in near real time - 36432 | CDC Public Access
Stacks Logo
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.
 
 
Help
Clear All Simple Search
Advanced Search
Detection of 5–fluorouracil surface contamination in near real time
Filetype[PDF-1.32 MB]


Details:
  • Pubmed ID:
    25956418
  • Pubmed Central ID:
    PMC4637263
  • Description:
    Objectives

    Contamination of workplace surfaces by antineoplastic drugs presents an exposure risk for healthcare workers. Traditional instrumental methods to detect contamination such as gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) or liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LCMS/MS) are sensitive and accurate but expensive and incapable of producing results in real time. This limits their utility in preventing worker exposure. We are currently developing monitors based on lateral flow immunoassay that can detect drug contamination in near real time. In this report we describe the laboratory performance of a 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) monitor.

    Methods

    The monitor was evaluated by spiking ceramic, vinyl, composite, stainless steel, and glass surfaces of 100 cm2 area with 5-FU masses of 0, 5, 10, 25, 50 and 100 ng. The surface was sampled with a wetted cotton swab, the swab was extracted with buffer, and the resulting solution was applied to a lateral flow monitor. Two ways of evaluating the response of these monitors were used: an electronic method where a lateral flow reader was used for measuring line intensities and a visual method where the intensity of the test line was visually compared to the control line.

    Results

    The 5-FU monitor is capable of detecting 10 ng/100cm2 (0.1 ng/cm2) using the electronic reader and 25 ng/100 cm2 (0.25 ng/cm2) using the visual comparison method for the surfaces studied. The response of the monitors was compared to LC-MS/MS results for the same samples for validation and there was good correlation of the two methods but some differences in absolute response, especially at higher spiking levels for the surface samples.

  • Document Type:
  • Collection(s):
  • Funding:
    CC999999/Intramural CDC HHS/United States
No Related Documents.
You May Also Like: