Alcohol and Alcoholism Advance Access originally published online on January 29, 2008
Alcohol and Alcoholism 2008 43(2):187-191; doi:10.1093/alcalc/agm175
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comparison between the urinary alcohol markers EtG, EtS, and GTOL/5-HIAA in a controlled drinking experiment
1 Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Division of Forensic Toxicology and Drug Abuse, Oslo, Norway
2 Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institute and Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
3 Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute and Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
* Author to whom correspondence should be addresses: Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Division of Forensic Toxicology and Drug Abuse, Pb 4404 Nydalen, N-0403 Oslo, Norway. Tel.: +47 –23 –40 –78 99; Fax: +47 –23 –40 –78 78; E-mail: Gudrun.Hoiseth{at}fhi.no
Received 25 May 2007; first review notified 20 August 2007; in revised form 6 September 2007; accepted 23 November 2007
 |
Abstract |
|---|
Aim: Urinary ethyl glucuronide (EtG), ethyl sulfate (EtS), and the ratio between 5-hydroxytryptophol-glucuronide and 5-hydroxyindole-3-acetic acid (GTOL/5-HIAA) are all suggested as biomarkers for recent alcohol ingestion with longer detection times than measurement of ethanol itself. The aim of this controlled study was to compare the sensitivities and detection times of EtG, EtS, and GTOL/5-HIAA, after a single ingestion of ethanol. Methods: 0.5 g ethanol/kg body weight was ingested by 10 healthy male volunteers in a fasted state. Ethanol, EtG, EtS, and GTOL/HIAA levels were measured in urine samples collected during a 45–50 h period. The total amount of ethanol excreted as EtG and EtS was also determined. Results: Urinary EtG, EtS, and GTOL/5-HIAA showed 100% sensitivity as biomarkers for recent drinking. Compared to ethanol testing in urine, the detection times for GTOL/5-HIAA were 
5 h longer and for EtG and EtS 25 h longer. The maximum EtG concentrations were higher than for EtS in all subjects, and a higher fraction of the ethanol dose was excreted as EtG (median 0.019%) compared with EtS (median 0.011%). Conclusions: This study is the first controlled experiment comparing the time-courses for ethanol, EtG, EtS, and GTOL/5-HIAA in urine. In cases where surveillance of alcohol relapse is needed, measurements of urinary EtG and EtS are sensitive and specific alternatives to ethanol testing. The GTOL/5-HIAA ratio is equally sensitive but with a much shorter window of detection.