THE FULL TEST RESULTS
Working with three UK coroners, the Reader 1000 was applied to the detection of drugs in the sweat of a fingerprint from 75 dead bodies.
The study showed that there was sufficient sweat present on the fingertips to enable analysis and that the device could detect the presence, or absence, of each drug.
Its accuracy was 99 per cent for cannabis, 95 per cent for cocaine, 96 per cent for opiates and 93 per cent for amphetamines.
A revolutionary fingerprint scanner can deliver drug test results within minutes with up to 99 per cent accuracy.
That’s the finding of a new study that looked at the performance of the Reader 1000 compared to existing urine and blood tests.
The device accurately tests for the four main groups of drugs most commonly abused – cocaine, opiates, cannabis and amphetamine class chemicals.
It’s already in use in coroner mortuaries as well as drug rehabilitation centres, workplaces and schools.
Studies are also underway for its use in airport screening and for monitoring offenders in prisons and probation services.
Experts used the technology, developed by Cambridge firm Intelligent Fingerprinting, to test its effectiveness.
They found that its accuracy ranged from 86 per cent to 92 per cent, when compared to blood and urine.
‘This new research highlights how our [device] can screen rapidly for drug use in individuals using a fingerprint sample with a sample collection time of only five seconds, and a total analysis time of ten minutes,’ said David Russell, Emeritus Professor at the University of East Anglia, UK, a co-author of the research and founder of the firm.
‘Our study also showed how our technology is being used by coroners to assist in gaining early understanding of the possible cause of death, and to inform potential further post-mortem activities or quickly facilitate police investigations.
‘We matched the coroners’ drug test results obtained using our fingerprint drug screen with a second sample tested in laboratory conditions, achieving excellent correlation in terms of accuracy,’ he added.
‘We also compared our results with toxicological analysis of blood and urine samples, with a good correlation of results.’