INTERNATIONALCOLLABORATIVE EXERCISES

Drug Analysis2016

ICE

Rou

nds 2

015/

2 an

d 20

16/1

Figure 1: Member States who have participated in the International Collaborative Exercises programme since 2009. Note: the boundaries, names and delegations used do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. This document has not been formally edited.

Introduction

An important part of the UNODC International Quality Assur-ance Programme (IQAP) is the implementation of the Interna-tional Collaborative Exercises (ICE). Participation in such exer-cises, inter-laboratory comparisons or proficiency tests is one of the essential elements for the implementation of a laboratory quality management system and ultimately accreditation. This is recognised by the International Organization for Standard-ization in ISO/IEC 17025-2005: “General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories” as contrib-uting to assuring the quality of test results.

The UNODC ICE programme allows drug testing laboratories from both developing and developed countries to continuously monitor their performance on a global scale. The options avail-able for participation are in the analysis of drugs in Seized Ma-terials (SM) and in Biological Specimens (BS, specifically urine). Two rounds are offered per year with each round presenting participants with four different test samples for analysis in each test group.

Laboratories participating in the ICE programme can use an on-line portal for direct submission of results to UNODC. This en-ables participants to receive immediate confidential feedback from UNODC on their performance and greatly facilitates the implementation of the programme.

Upon completion of each ICE round, the analytical results are evaluated by UNODC and an International Panel of Forensic Sci-ence Experts which oversees the implementation of ICE and of-fers guidance and support in addressing relevant quality issues. Following evaluation, summary reports of the performance of

Figure 2: Number of laboratories that have participated in the ICE programme since 2014/1.

participating laboratories in both the SM and BS test groups are made available to participants through the ICE portal and the UNODC website. These summary reports allow participants to evaluate their performance while maintaining confidentiality.

Participation

The number of laboratories worldwide who participate in the ICE programme has continued to increase in recent years and there are now 221 laboratories from 69 Member States actively participating in the programme, representing a 6% increase in year on year participation. Figure 2 shows the participation of laboratories in the SM and BS test groups for all ICE rounds from 2014/1 up to the most recent 2016/1 round of the programme.The continued increase in participation during 2016 is a result of the greater recognition globally of the importance of quality as-surance and the benefits of participation in the ICE programme. Focused technical assistance was also provided to more labora-

151 158178 173

184

72 7185 88 93

0

40

80

120

160

200

2014/1 2014/2 2015/1 2015/2 2016/1

No.

of l

abor

ator

ies

ICE round

SM BS

Table 1: Composition of SM test samples, performance of participants in qualitative and quantitative analysis, number of false positive and false negative results in ICE 2015/2 and 2016/1.

ICE menu. This menu covers controlled substances, certain new psychoactive substances (NPS) and adulterants/diluents most commonly encountered in drug seizures. The ICE menu for the BS test group covers selected drugs of abuse, their metabolites and related compounds.

The composition of test samples within the ICE programme are designed to simulate actual casework encountered by forensic laboratories. In the SM group, the test samples are prepared in the Laboratory and Scientific Section of UNODC using donations of seized materials from Member States. The BS test samples are prepared using controlled substances, their metabolites and related compounds in urine.

Table 2: Composition of BS test samples, performance of participants in qualitative and quantitative analysis, number of false positive and false negative results in ICE 2015/2 and 2016/1.

Test

Sam

ple

Cont

ents

Qualitative Performance Quantitative Performance

Corr

ect

Iden

tifica

tion

(%)

Num

ber o

f

False

Pos

itive

s

Num

ber o

f

False

Neg

ative

s

Anal

yses

not

Perfo

rmed

Conc

entr

ation

(ng/

ml)

Robu

st A

vera

ge

Re

port

ed (n

g/m

l)

|z|

< 2

S

atisf

acto

ry (%

)

2 ≤

|z|

≤ 3

Q

uesti

onab

le (

%)

|z|

> 3

U

nsati

sfac

tory

(%)

2015/2 BS-1Buprenorphine 66

4 7 201,150 979 84 8 8

Norbuprenorphine 40 2,300 2,038 82 18 -

2015/2 BS-2 Tenamfetamine 74 10 11 11 920 901 68 7 25

2015/2 BS-3 Methadone 88 7 5 6 2,300 1,973 88 6 6

2015/2 BS-4 Nordazepam 87 6 5 6 1,150 1,081 70 7 23

2016/1 BS-1 7-Aminoflunitrazepam 60 8 14 23 800 550 100 - -

2016/1 BS-2Buprenorphine 68

5 9 18920 889 84 8 8

Norbuprenorphine 48 1,840 1,881 67 - 34

2016/1 BS-3 Blank N/A 8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

2016/1 BS-4 2C-B 75 5 4 19 11,500 11,973 67 5 28

Test

Sam

ple

Cont

ents

Qualitative Performance Quantitative Performance

Corr

ect

Id

entifi

catio

n (%

)

Num

ber o

f

Fa

lse P

ositi

ves

Num

ber o

f

Fa

lse N

egati

ves

Purit

y (m

ass %

)

Robu

st A

vera

ge

Repo

rted

(%)

|z|

< 2

S

atisf

acto

ry (%

)

2 ≤

|z|

≤ 3

Q

uesti

onab

le (

%)

|z|

> 3

U

nsati

sfac

tory

(%)

2015/2 SM-1 Cocaine 98 3 3 78.8 77.6 81 8 11

2015/2 SM-2 Nimetazepam 91 5 12 3.6 3.7 74 7 19

2015/2 SM-3 Ketamine 97 4 5 11.8 11.9 79 8 13

2015/2 SM-4 Metamfetamine 99 8 2 24.1 23.9 81 3 16

2016/1 SM-1 Cocaine 100 3 0 50.5 51.7 83 6 11

2016/1 SM-2 MDMA 98 4 4 13.8 13.8 87 8 5

2016/1 SM-3 Amfetamine 93 7 11 5.5 5.5 81 9 10

2016/1 SM-4 Blank N/A 14 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

tories in collaboration with regional forensic networks and with support from UNODC staff in regional and country programmes.It is recognised that some participants continue to have dif-ficulties with obtaining import authorization for the SM test samples and the reference samples for the SM and BS groups and this caused some delays in sending test samples and in the submission of results from a small number of laboratories.

Analysis of ICE test samples

Laboratories participating in the ICE programme are request-ed to analyse four test samples in the SM group and/or four test samples in the BS group for the substances listed in the

Table 3: Complete list of z-scores for participating laboratories (with their lab code) within the SM test group in 2015/2 and 2016/1. Asterisks indicate that quantification was not performed or that the laboratory did not participate in that particular round of ICE. Note that 2016/1 SM-3 was a blank test sample.

ICE 2015/2 ICE 2016/1 ICE 2015/2 ICE 2016/1SM-1 SM-2 SM-3 SM-4 SM-1 SM-2 SM-4 SM-1 SM-2 SM-3 SM-4 SM-1 SM-2 SM-4

Lab

code

Coca

ine

Nim

etaz

epam

Keta

min

e

Met

amfe

tam

ine

Coca

ine

MDM

A

Amfe

tam

ine

lab

code

Coca

ine

Nim

etaz

epam

Keta

min

e

Met

amfe

tam

ine

Coca

ine

MDM

A

Amfe

tam

ine

101 -0.3 -0.4 * 0.0 -0.6 -0.4 0.6 12323 -12.3 * * 9.5 * * *104 0.1 * * * 0.9 0.4 * 12357 2.5 * 1.2 0.4 -2.8 0.4 0.0108 0.0 * -1.6 * -1.1 0.5 * 12365 0.1 * * * -1.7 * *110 -0.5 * 1.2 -0.6 * * * 12366 2.0 * * * 0.3 * -0.1113 0.5 * -0.3 0.1 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 12367 0.9 * -1.0 -0.7 -0.7 0.3 1.1141 0.2 * -0.2 0.5 0.3 -1.2 -0.1 12373 * 0.2 -0.1 -0.9 * * *149 0.2 0.2 0.6 1.5 * * * 12379 * * * * 0.6 * *151 0.3 0.2 0.1 -0.2 1.3 0.2 -0.6 12409 -1.0 * * * 0.1 * *152 0.4 * 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.0 -0.3 12454 5.0 165.8 47.5 23.3 -3.4 -3.0 2.2157 -1.3 * -1.5 0.7 * * * 12456 * * * * -0.2 2.0 4.9158 * -1.5 -0.5 -2.8 * * * 12481 2.2 * 0.5 -0.1 0.7 0.3 8.7161 * * 0.1 -1.1 * * * 12490 * * * * 1.2 -0.2 0.8181 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 0.3 -0.1 1.4 12509 3.4 191.4 16.8 29.1 * * *186 0.5 0.0 1.2 -0.2 1.3 -1.9 1.9 12511 * * * * -0.3 -0.4 *187 0.9 -3.1 -8.1 9.1 -7.2 0.2 0.9 12548 4.5 0.4 -2.8 -4.9 0.1 -0.9 -0.1188 2.5 3.1 0.1 -1.1 0.5 0.1 0.6 12569 -1.3 * * * -0.5 * *202 -6.1 * * * -0.3 * * 12726 -0.5 4.1 -0.4 1.2 -0.2 -0.1 -0.1204 -1.3 * * * 0.5 * -1.2 12791 -0.9 -0.2 0.5 0.1 -0.4211 -0.2 * * -0.9 0.1 0.0 0.2 12864 -19.3 2.7 -1.6 4.7 3.2 3.6 -6.7212 0.2 * * * 1.0 -0.8 -0.4 12913 0.4 * * * -0.1 0.3 2.4215 0.0 * * -0.5 0.1 1.0 0.8 12947 1.1 * * * * * *217 0.3 * * * -0.6 0.1 0.5 12993 0.5 * * * * * *342 -0.2 * * * 3.6 * * 13159 * * * * 0.3 14.9 *504 0.4 * * * -1.0 1.4 -0.1 13256 0.9 * * * 0.4 * -0.1506 * * -0.6 -1.0 -0.5 -0.9 -0.3 13266 0.1 0.2 -1.9 0.0 -0.3 -0.7 -0.3510 2.3 3.3 2.7 2.7 8.7 0.5 -0.3 13272 0.1 * -2.8 * 6.2 * *515 -0.2 0.0 0.3 -0.9 * * * 13312 0.7 0.3 -0.9 0.1 -0.8 -0.2 -0.1518 * * * * -0.8 -0.4 -0.9 13416 0.1 * -0.5 3.7 2.1 -0.4 -1.7521 1.2 -1.8 -1.0 -1.1 1.2 * 6.2 13672 -8.7 0.8 1.2 -0.4 12.2 -2.9 3.9524 1.2 * -0.4 -1.6 1.0 0.4 0.2 13782 1.0 * * * -1.5 * -0.6527 -0.5 0.0 0.3 -1.0 0.2 0.2 0.5 13789 0.0 0.0 0.4 -0.2 0.2 -0.8 *529 -0.1 0.6 -2.2 -0.2 1.2 1.8 1.2 13804 -0.1 0.7 -0.6 -0.1 -0.6 1.1 -1.1533 0.3 * * * -10.1 * * 13970 * * * * 0.2 0.2 -0.3560 -0.5 -0.2 -1.7 -0.4 -0.7 -0.2 0.3 13977 -1.7 * * -3.8 -3.8 -2.0 0.3701 2.1 -0.1 2.0 1.9 * * * 13981 0.3 * 0.3 -0.4 -0.2 -1.3 -0.1703 -0.1 -2.1 0.0 0.3 -0.9 -0.1 * 14102 0.1 * * 1.8 2.8 -0.7 0.8713 0.2 -0.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 14160 -0.8 -0.7 -0.3 0.1 * * *714 0.2 * -0.2 0.1 0.1 -0.3 * 14249 -1.2 -1.1 -0.4 0.0 * * *754 0.4 0.6 -0.6 -0.8 -0.1 -1.1 0.6 14258 -1.0 0.2 0.1 -0.5 * * *

8100 0.7 * -0.7 0.2 0.9 1.0 2.4 14282 -1.0 -1.1 -0.2 -0.4 * * *8120 -0.2 * * * -4.6 * * 14323 * * * * -0.5 -4.2 *8122 -0.8 * * 0.6 0.1 -1.5 * 14377 * * * * 1.0 1.1 *8123 0.1 0.1 1.3 0.3 -0.1 -0.4 -0.1 14458 -10.3 -2.1 2.0 8.0 2.2 -11.1 -0.88221 0.1 * * 0.6 0.1 0.5 -0.6 14512 0.0 -1.6 -0.2 0.1 0.1 -1.1 -0.58222 0.5 * * -0.5 0.1 -0.7 0.8 14619 -0.8 -1.5 -0.8 -0.5 * * *8223 -0.3 * * -0.5 -0.7 -0.7 -0.8 14638 * * * * 1.2 1.4 0.08224 -0.4 * * -1.1 -0.3 0.1 -0.8 14692 -1.0 -1.0 0.7 -0.2 * * *8227 0.2 -6.2 -0.7 0.6 -1.8 1.0 0.1 14742 -2.2 -1.5 -0.6 -1.1 * * *8234 1.4 * * * 0.1 0.2 -0.4 14772 -0.8 * 1.4 * 0.2 1.5 -0.48292 -1.6 * * * -0.8 * * 14840 -4.4 -3.1 9.1 1.7 * *8555 -0.4 * * * -1.9 -1.5 * 14936 -1.2 0.2 -0.4 0.0 * * *9175 0.2 * * * -0.2 -0.4 * 14975 1.6 * 0.1 1.7 -0.1 0.5 0.59194 -0.6 * * -1.1 -0.3 -0.7 -0.8 15355 -0.9 * * -0.4 0.1 0.3 0.39249 0.1 * * 0.1 -0.1 0.7 -0.1 15374 0.4 * * 0.0 0.2 -0.4 -0.39282 -11.1 * -6.1 -10.1 * * * 15441 -1.0 * * 0.4 0.7 0.0 1.29357 * * * * 0.9 * * 15498 -3.2 * 0.3 -7.1 * * *9579 -1.4 * * * -2.1 * * 15505 4.2 2.8 5.2 9.6 -3.9 -7.7 *9582 -1.7 0.4 -0.2 5.3 * * * 15528 -1.0 * 48.1 * * * *

10232 * * * * 0.0 -0.1 1.0 15613 * * * * * * 0.010242 * * * * 0.1 -0.6 -0.4 15694 -11.8 * * * * * *10252 * * * * 2.5 0.1 -7.0 15762 * * * * 0.2 -1.2 -2.710262 * * * * -1.4 0.4 * 15700 0.1 * * -1.1 * * *10267 0.7 * -0.3 0.0 -0.7 -1.6 * 15717 0.9 * * * * * *10272 * * * * 0.7 2.2 * 15719 0.2 0.1 5.5 8.5 * * *10282 * * * * -0.1 0.5 * 15762 2.1 * 0.8 3.1 * * *10297 * * * * -3.1 4.6 * 15809 * * * * 0.2 -2.6 0.710411 0.7 * * 1.8 -1.3 0.9 -2.2 15857 -0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 -1.2 -0.3 -0.810413 0.1 * 0.5 0.3 -1.2 -0.8 -1.2 15876 * * * * 1.1 * *10466 0.1 0.8 -1.0 0.0 -0.2 0.8 -0.6 15914 0.7 * * 0.6 1.0 1.8 2.710531 * * -4.0 -2.0 * -0.7 -2.2 15940 0.8 3.7 -0.9 0.7 0.7 2.8 1.610581 -0.4 * -0.6 1.2 -4.6 -0.7 1.6 15951 3.0 * * * * * *11474 -0.1 -0.2 -0.9 1.0 * 0.8 -1.5 16123 * * * * 0.0 -0.5 26.311635 0.1 -0.1 0.2 0.3 -0.1 0.5 -1.8 16249 * * * * 5.0 1.3 6.211662 * * * * 13.2 * 46.9 16538 * * * * -0.1 * *11723 0.5 -0.9 0.3 0.7 -0.1 -0.4 -0.4 16557 * * * * -0.8 -0.3 -4.611899 1.2 * 0.7 -0.2 0.8 -0.5 -0.1 16571 * * * * -0.3 -0.3 -0.611915 -0.7 -0.5 0.0 -0.1 -0.9 0.7 0.0 16596 -0.1 -0.2 -0.9 1.0 -1.4 0.8 -1.512105 -0.2 * * * 0.3 * * 16680 * * * * * 1.1 *12176 -4.1 * * * -0.9 * * 16717 * * * * 1.5 2.0 3.112252 -0.1 * * * -0.1 * * 16870 * * * * 0.4 -0.3 -2.512288 -0.4 * * -0.5 0.1 1.9 0.7

Table 4: Complete list of z-scores for participating laboratories (with their lab code) within the BS test group in 2015/2 and 2016/1. Asterisks indicate that quantification was not performed or that the laboratory did not participate in that particular round of ICE.

ICE 2015/2 ICE 2016/1BS-1 BS-2 BS-3 BS-4 BS-1 BS-2 BS-4

lab

code

Bupr

enor

phin

e

Nor

bupr

enor

phin

e

Tena

mfe

tam

ine

Met

hado

ne

Nor

daze

pam

7-Am

inofl

unitr

azep

am

Bupr

enor

phin

e

Nor

bupr

enor

phin

e

2C-B

110 0.8 0.0 -0.6 0.0 1.0 * * * *161 * * * -1.5 * * * * *181 0.4 0.2 1.1 0.3 -0.1 * -0.3 0.3 *328 -0.3 -1.0 0.7 -0.2 0.3 2.3 -0.8330 -0.1 -0.1 -0.3 1.7 5.5 -0.8 -0.5 0.5 -0.7346 * * * -0.8 4.5 * * * *348 * * * 0.1 -0.1 * * * *510 0.0 0.6 0.2 -0.4 -0.1 -0.9 2.9 * -0.5529 -1.3 1.3 0.4 1.1 -1.1 0.8 2.7 -8.4 0.1751 -0.6 2.4 -0.2 0.1 -0.5 -1.1 -0.3 -5.1 -2.3754 0.8 * 4.0 -0.8 -0.5 -1.4 -0.1 * *761 0.1 0.0 0.0 * * * -0.2 -1.2 *

8555 1.0 0.3 0.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.0 -0.6 0.49357 * * * -0.1 * * * * *9366 * * * * * 1.4 -0.2 0.6 -0.29582 0.6 -1.2 12.7 -1.2 -1.0 * 0.0 * 0.5

10531 * * * * * * -2.4 * *11224 0.8 -0.8 -4.3 0.9 6.4 * * * *11377 -1.1 * -1.9 -0.1 -1.5 * * * *11635 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 -0.4 0.7 1.6 0.011657 * * * * -1.1 * * * *11899 6.6 * * 4.4 15.0 * -2.6 * *12199 0.4 * 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.8 -0.1 -0.8 -0.312231 * * -0.1 -0.3 -0.1 * * * -0.612290 -0.1 0.1 0.6 0.9 -0.3 0.8 -0.1 -0.8 *12305 * * * * * 0.5 * * *12367 0.5 1.5 -1.0 -1.1 2.0 * 0.6 0.9 0.612454 -1.7 -2.2 -1.6 -1.3 2.1 -0.9 1.0 0.3 -3.812509 -2.6 * * -1.2 189.0 * * * *12548 * * * * * * -0.7 -6.7 -3.612725 * * 7.2 8.1 * * * * *13416 0.9 * 0.3 0.8 -0.1 0.2 -2.6 * *13957 * * 4.5 0.6 * * * * *14200 * * -2.5 * * * * * *14458 -3.4 * * -2.4 * * * * -3.614772 * * -0.1 0.2 0.4 * * * *15247 0.9 * 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.4 * -1.315279 * * 0.5 -0.1 -1.4 0.9 * * *15352 * * * * * -1.2 * * *15719 0.3 0.0 -3.4 1.3 -5.1 * * * *15762 * -1.0 3.0 -0.4 0.6 * * * *15940 -3.0 -2.2 -2.2 -2.0 -4.8 -0.1 -1.0 -3.1 27.916429 * * * * * * 15.5 168.6 47.4

Laboratories are asked to analyse the test samples using the screening and confirmatory tests they routinely employ in case-work. These may range from simple techniques such as colour tests and Thin Layer Chromatography (TLC), to more advanced methods such as Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS). By recording the techniques they use, the laboratories are able to assess their performance against that of other labora-tories of similar capabilities and to identify any limitations of their performance compared with that of differently equipped laboratories. Indeed, the ICE programme is specifically designed as such to enable participation of laboratories with differing ca-pacities. Participants are requested to identify the substances in the test samples and in addition, are encouraged to report the purity or concentrations of the controlled drugs present in the test samples.

Results from ICE rounds 2015/2 and 2016/1

Qualitative analysis

Table 1 shows the composition of the SM test samples in rounds 2015/2 and 2016/1, the percentage of laboratories that correct-ly identified each test sample and the numbers of false positive and false negative results reported for controlled substances. Overall, the results for qualitative analysis within the SM test group in both rounds were excellent, with 91% and above of laboratories correctly identifying the controlled substances in each round.While the number of false positive and false negative results reported through 2015/2 and 2016/1 was low in most test samples, it is notable that there were 14 false positive results

for controlled substances in the plant material that was used to prepare 2016/1 SM-4. Laboratories who do report false posi-tive or negative results should investigate the reasons for this and corrective actions should be taken in order to continuously improve performance.

The qualitative performance of laboratories in the BS test group in 2015/2 and 2016/1 are shown in Table 2. Within the BS test group, the results were good in both rounds for the majority of test samples, given the inherently higher level of difficulty in the analysis of the low concentrations of possibly multiple drugs in biological specimens and the complexity of the matrices. 2C-B, last present in a test sample in BS test group in 2014 was correctly identified by 49% of participants at that time and it is notable that 75% of participants correctly identified this sub-stance in 2016/1 BS-4. Also, while only 12.5% of participants performed quantitative analysis of 2C-B in 2014, this number increased to 20% of participants in 2016.

Quantitative analysis

Quantification of test samples within the ICE programme is not compulsory, however, laboratories who do so are encour-aged to quantify all test samples (depending on jurisdictional requirements) in order to get a better measure of their perfor-mance over time.

Z-scores are a statistical parameter used in proficiency tests and collaborative exercises as a measure of performance in quanti-tative analysis and can be interpreted by ICE participants in line

with ISO 13528:2005, section 7.4.2 and as follows:

|z| < 2 = satisfactory2 ≤ |z| ≤ 3 = questionable

|z| > 3 = unsatisfactory

According to the recommendations in ISO 13528:2005, an un-satisfactory z-score is considered to give an action signal and a questionable z-score is considered to give a warning signal. A single action signal or warning signal in two successive rounds shall be taken that an anomaly has occurred that requires in-vestigation. Tables 1 and 2 also provide Information on the per-centages of laboratories who obtained satisfactory, question-able and unsatisfactory z-scores for all test samples in the two ICE rounds of 2016. Graphical plots of z-scores are also included in the summary reports after each ICE round and a typical plot for ICE 2015/2 BS-3 (2,300ng/ml Methadone) is shown in Figure 3. Participants who obtained questionable or unsatisfactory z-scores are highlighted in amber and red respectively.

A comprehensive list of the performance of all laboratories that carried out quantitative analysis during ICE rounds 2015/2 and 2016/1 is given in Tables 3 and 4. This information enables laboratories to compare their individual quantitative perfor-mance with all other participants. Laboratories whose results are classified as unsatisfactory or questionable in two succes-sive rounds should investigate the cause and take appropriate corrective action, with support from UNODC, if required.

Figure 3: z-score plot for 2015/2 BS-3 (2300ng/ml Methadone). Each bar represents the z-score of a laboratory who per-formed quantitation and the lines indicates the levels below and above, where z-scores are considered satisfactory, question-able and unsatisfactory.

-2.4

-2.0

-1.5 -1

.3 -1.2 -1.2 -1.1 -0

.8 -0.8

-0.4

-0.4 -0.3 -0

.1 -0.1 -0.1

0.0 0.1

0.1

0.1 0.

2 0.3 0.3 0.

6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.

90.

9 1.1 1.1 1.

31.

7

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

WJU

DYX

KIJ0

C122

ZFEN

VFVL

EVP2

Z5XG

BWCX

LW3F

Y8Y9

5OLO

5ML5

JCLR

996M

14J2

5JY8

5P55

XCQQ

VAUA

8SSZ

SAGF

0Z2P

QLXQ

LQSJ

EVRS

VVVI

WA

PPPP

1V88

RVB3

GELL

LLFY

OWRE

5QGV

32SL

I666

I6BH

66HF

C4CC

UY6A

YYZE

PQ8E

0ALK

WG

7Q4A

DSBC

7BAB

JVU1

USUU

OIZR

ZHHN

HG8.

1

4.4

Figure 4: New psychoactive substances reported by ICE participants during the 2015/2 and 2016/1 rounds of the ICE programme.

29%

28%

16%

15%

4%4% 2% 2%

New Psychoactive Substances (NPS)

During the 2015/2 and 2016/1 rounds of ICE, participants pro-vided 409 reports of the identification of 197 different NPS in their laboratories. As illustrated in Figure 4, synthetic cannabi-noids corresponded to 29% of all reports followed by synthetic cathinones (28%) with 16% of the substances reported belong to a group that could not be classified structurally, known as “other substances”.

Synthetic cannabinoids Synthetic cathinones

Others Phenethylamines

Ketamine and phencyclidine-type substances piperazines

Tryptamines Aminoindanes

The most commonly reported substance during 2016 was the synthetic cannabinoid, MDMB-CHMICA, followed by the syn-thetic cathinones, alpha-PVP, ethylone and methylone. Alpha-PVP and methylone are now currently controlled under Sched-ule II of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971.Ethylone and MDMB-CHMICA have been recommended for scheduling at the 2017 Commission on Narcotic Drugs by the Expert Committee on Drug Dependence of the World Health Organisation at its 38th meeting in 2016.

In order to identify the NPS with the greatest potential for harm, it is neccessary to collect and analyse toxiciology data from adverse events due to the use of NPS. UNODC, in collabo-ration with the International Association of Forensic Toxicolo-gists (TIAFT), is in the process of designing an online tool for the collection and sharing of such toxiciology data. This would assist the forensic community in identifying and anticipating threats due to NPS and to identify measures needed to address gaps in analytical preparedness, where necessary. The online tool will be released later this year and made available to laboratories participating in the ICE programme.ICE participants are encouraged to use the UNODC early warn-ing advisory on NPS, accessible through their ICE portal ac-counts, to submit reports of NPS that they detect. This informa-tion enables UNODC to more effectively tailor the assistance it provides to forensic laboratories.

Acknowledgements:

This report was produced by the UNODC Laboratory and Sci-entific Section (LSS) under the supervision of Dr. Justice Tettey. The contributions of the UNODC International Panel of Foren-sic Experts (Mr. Scott Oulton, Ms. Catherine Quinn, Prof. Franco Tagliaro and Dr. Angeline Yap Tiong Whei), Dr. Iphigenia Naidis and the core ICE team (Dr. Conor Crean and Ms. Romana Luger) are gratefully acknowledged.

The ICE programme is a UNODC mandated activity and is imple-mented through regular budget funds and through the UNODC Global Scientific and Forensic Programme – Support Project (GLOU54), which operationalizes the forensic aspects of the UNODC Thematic Programme on Research, Trend Analysis and Forensics. UNODC would like to acknowledge the financial and/or material support from the Governments of Finland, Japan and the United States to the project.Additional information

If you have comments or questions related to this report, please e-mail us at UNODC-ICE@unodc.org or Lab@unodc.org. Addi-tional information on the ICE programme and other UNODC Laboratory and Scientific Section programmes can be found via the internet at www.unodc.org, or by writing to UNODC at the Vienna International Centre, P.O. Box 500, A-1400 Vienna, Aus-tria. Tel.: (+43-1) 26060-0, Fax: (+43-1) 26060-5866. February 2017.Suggested citation: ICE Drug Analysis Report, 2016, UNODC.