What Muscle Relaxers Show Up On Drug Tests And Detection Factors

Common Drug Testing Methods and Their Detection Capabilities for Muscle Relaxers

Detection windows for muscle relaxers vary significantly across matrices, with urine and oral fluid tests being the most common in workplace screening, while blood and hair analyses are reserved for forensic or clinical confirmation. Below, the comparative capabilities of testing methods are outlined, followed by an examination of cutoff discrepancies and matrix-specific interferences.

Detection Windows for Muscle Relaxers by Matrix and Method

Urine Testing

Blood Testing

Oral Fluid (Saliva) Testing

Hair Testing

Note: Detection windows are not absolute—factors such as liver function, age, and co-administered drugs (e.g., CYP3A4 inhibitors like grapefruit juice) can prolong or shorten elimination.

Comparative Analysis of Testing Methods for Muscle Relaxers

Key Consideration: Immunoassays serve as initial screens but require confirmation via GC-MS/LC-MS/MS for legal or clinical decisions. Workplace programs (e.g., DOT) mandate two-step testing to mitigate false positives.

Cutoff Variations Across Testing Standards

Critical Distinction:

DOT cutoffs are higher to reduce false positives in safety-sensitive roles.

Clinical cutoffs are lower to identify potential toxicity or non-compliance.

Forensic blood cutoffs align with pharmacokinetic studies linking drug concentration to impairment.

Matrix Effects Influencing Detection Accuracy

Urine Specimens

Blood Specimens

Oral Fluid

Hair Specimens

False Positives and Cross-Reactivity in Drug Tests for Muscle Relaxers

Drug testing for muscle relaxers often relies on immunoassays and mass spectrometry, but false positives and cross-reactivity remain critical challenges due to structural similarities with other substances. Over-the-counter medications, herbal supplements, and even dietary sources can trigger misleading results, while confirmatory tests like mass spectrometry (MS) are essential for accuracy. Misidentification risks arise from shared metabolic pathways or chemical analogs, particularly in initial screening tests where specificity is lower. This section examines common sources of false positives, cross-reactivity patterns among muscle relaxers and other drug classes, and the comparative reliability of screening versus confirmatory methodologies.

Over-the-Counter Medications, Supplements, and Foods Causing False Positives

Certain non-prescription substances contain compounds that structurally resemble muscle relaxers or their metabolites, leading to cross-reactivity in immunoassays. These false positives can result in incorrect assumptions about substance use, particularly in workplace or clinical testing. Below are key categories of substances known to interfere with muscle relaxer detection:

• OTC Pain Relievers and Cold Medicines:
  • Dextromethorphan (DXM) – Found in cough suppressants; may cross-react with tests for cyclobenzaprine or carisoprodol due to shared metabolic pathways involving CYP2D6 enzymes.
  • Pseudoephedrine – Some immunoassays for methocarbamol may produce false positives due to structural similarities in certain assay designs.
• Herbal and Natural Supplements:
  • Valerian root – Contains gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)-ergic compounds that may interfere with baclofen or benzodiazepine tests.
  • Kava kava – Structurally similar to some muscle relaxers (e.g., methocarbamol) and can trigger cross-reactivity in broad-spectrum immunoassays.
  • St. John’s wort – Induces CYP3A4, accelerating metabolism of muscle relaxers like cyclobenzaprine, but may also produce metabolites detectable in generic muscle relaxer assays.
• Dietary Sources:
  • Poppy seeds – Contain trace amounts of morphine and codeine, which may cross-react with tests for meprobamate or carisoprodol in rare cases.
  • Licorice root – Glycyrrhizin metabolites can interfere with immunoassays for benzodiazepines or baclofen due to structural analogies.
• Vitamin and Mineral Supplements:
  • High-dose magnesium or calcium supplements – In rare instances, excipients or contaminants may trigger non-specific binding in immunoassays.

Cross-Reactivity Among Muscle Relaxers and Other Drug Classes

Muscle relaxers share chemical structures or metabolic intermediates with other therapeutic classes, leading to cross-reactivity in immunoassays. Below is a categorized list of muscle relaxers with documented cross-reactivity, along with affected drug classes:

Baclofen

• Cross-reacts with benzodiazepine assays due to shared GABAergic mechanisms and structural similarities to diazepam metabolites.
• May produce false positives in tests for gabapentin or pregabalin in non-specific immunoassays.

Cyclobenzaprine

• Structural analog to tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs); cross-reacts with amitriptyline or nortriptyline assays.
• Metabolized via CYP2D6, similar to codeine or tramadol, leading to potential overlap in certain screening panels.

Carisoprodol

• Meprobamate metabolite (3-methyl-5-ethylpyrazole-1-carboxamide) cross-reacts with barbiturate assays.
• Shared detection with meprobamate itself, which is a controlled substance in some jurisdictions.
• May produce false positives for "designer benzodiazepines" (e.g., etizolam) in broad-spectrum immunoassays.

Methocarbamol

• Cross-reacts with tests for guaifenesin (an expectorant) due to structural similarities in certain assay designs.
• Metabolite 3-hydroxy-methocarbamol may interfere with broad-spectrum opioid assays (e.g., oxycodone).

Tizanidine

• Structural resemblance to alpha-2 agonists (e.g., clonidine); may cross-react with tests for central nervous system depressants.
• Metabolized via CYP1A2, similar to caffeine or theophylline, leading to potential assay interference.

Specificity Comparison: Screening vs. Confirmatory Tests for Muscle Relaxers

Initial drug screening tests, such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) or lateral flow devices, prioritize sensitivity over specificity to minimize false negatives. However, this trade-off increases the likelihood of false positives, particularly for substances with structural analogs. Confirmatory tests, such as gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) or liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), offer higher specificity by identifying exact molecular structures. Below is a comparison of test types, their detection capabilities, and examples of misidentified substances:

Test Type	Specificity	Common False Positives	Confirmatory Capability
Immunoassays (ELISA, EMIT, CEDIA)	Low to moderate (80–95%)	Baclofen misidentified as benzodiazepines (e.g., diazepam). Carisoprodol metabolites detected as barbiturates (e.g., phenobarbital). Cyclobenzaprine cross-reacting with TCAs (e.g., amitriptyline).	No; requires confirmatory testing.
Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS, LC-MS/MS)	High (>99%)	None; distinguishes exact molecular structures. May still misidentify novel or synthetic analogs (e.g., designer muscle relaxers).	Yes; definitive identification.
Lateral Flow Devices (e.g., rapid urine tests)	Very low (50–80%)	Methocarbamol detected as opioids (e.g., hydrocodone). Tizanidine misidentified as amphetamines due to structural overlap.	No; screening-only purpose.

Prescription Muscle Relaxers and Illicit/Designer Drug Misidentification

Some prescription muscle relaxers share structural or metabolic profiles with illicit or "designer" drugs, complicating detection in forensic or workplace settings. Below are key examples where legal muscle relaxers may appear in tests for prohibited substances:

• Carisoprodol and Meprobamate:

  Carisoprodol is metabolized into meprobamate, a controlled substance in many countries. Tests for "designer benzodiazepines" or "new psychoactive substances" (NPS) may inadvertently detect meprobamate metabolites, leading to false assumptions about illicit drug use. For example, meprobamate’s structural similarity to etizolam (a designer benzodiazepine) has resulted in misidentification in broad-spectrum immunoassays.

• Cyclobenzaprine and Synthetic Cathinones:

  Legal and Regulatory Perspectives on Muscle Relaxers in Drug Testing

  Drug testing for muscle relaxers intersects with evolving legal and regulatory frameworks, particularly in employment, sports, and forensic contexts. These substances, often prescribed for musculoskeletal conditions, face varying degrees of scrutiny depending on jurisdiction, scheduling classifications, and testing methodologies. Regulatory bodies such as the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), and European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) periodically update their guidelines, influencing which muscle relaxers are monitored and under what conditions. Legal implications arise from unintended positives, cross-reactivity, or misuse, particularly in high-stakes environments where compliance with testing protocols is mandatory.

  The following sections outline the historical regulatory shifts, legal consequences of positive tests, and the scheduling status of muscle relaxers across key jurisdictions. A comparative analysis of detection protocols and the challenges posed by "gray-area" substances—such as low-dose gabapentinoids—further clarifies the complexities of compliance and enforcement.
  

  Timeline of Regulatory Changes Affecting Muscle Relaxers in Drug Testing

  Regulatory updates to drug testing panels for muscle relaxers reflect advancements in pharmacology, abuse potential assessments, and public health priorities. Below is a chronological overview of significant changes by major governing bodies, highlighting additions, removals, or modifications to standard testing protocols.

  Key Regulatory Updates:

  • 1988 (U.S.) – SAMHSA Mandatory Drug Testing Panel Expansion
    SAMHSA introduced methaqualone (a sedative-hypnotic with muscle relaxant properties) to its 5-panel urine drug test, though it was later removed due to declining prescription rates and reduced abuse potential. This marked the first inclusion of a non-opioid central nervous system depressant in federal workplace testing guidelines.

    Source: SAMHSA’s Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (1988, revised 2020).

  • 2007 (Global) – WADA Prohibited List Updates
    The World Anti-Doping Agency added carisoprodol (a Schedule IV controlled substance in the U.S.) to its Prohibited List under the category of S4 (Non-Specified Substances), requiring athletes to declare its use if prescribed. This followed reports of its misuse in sports for performance enhancement.

    Source: WADA’s Prohibited List 2007 (amended annually).

  • 2016 (EU) – EMCDDA Risk Assessment on Gabapentinoids
    The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction classified gabapentin and pregabalin as controlled substances under the EU Early Warning System, prompting member states to adjust testing protocols. While not universally scheduled, some countries (e.g., Germany, Sweden) added them to workplace or forensic panels due to rising abuse cases.

    Source: EMCDDA’s Risk Assessment on Gabapentin and Pregabalin (2016).

  • 2020 (U.S.) – SAMHSA 5-Panel to 10-Panel Transition
    SAMHSA expanded its federal workplace drug testing to include oxazepam (a metabolite of diazepam) and carisoprodol, reflecting concerns over prescription drug misuse. The update also clarified that muscle relaxants with opioid-like effects (e.g., cyclobenzaprine) were not explicitly tested unless part of a broader opioid panel.

    Source: SAMHSA’s Federal Register Notice (2020).

  • 2023 (Global) – WHO’s International Drug Policy Framework
    The World Health Organization recommended pregabalin and gabapentin be monitored under Schedule III in countries with high diversion risks, influencing testing policies in Australia, Canada, and the UK. Some jurisdictions (e.g., California) now include them in probation and DUI testing panels.

    Source: WHO’s Expert Committee on Drug Dependence (ECDD) Report (2023).

  Context:
  These regulatory shifts demonstrate how muscle relaxers transition from over-the-counter or prescription-only status to controlled substances based on emerging data on abuse potential, metabolic interactions, and societal impact. Testing protocols often lag behind scheduling changes, creating discrepancies between legal classifications and detection capabilities.
  

  Legal Implications of Testing Positive for Muscle Relaxers

  A positive result for muscle relaxers in drug testing carries significant legal and professional consequences, varying by jurisdiction and context (employment, sports, legal proceedings). Below are the primary implications, supported by case examples and statutory frameworks.

  Employment Context:

  • Federal Workplace Policies (U.S.)
    Under SAMHSA guidelines, a positive test for carisoprodol, cyclobenzaprine, or methocarbamol in a DOT-regulated workplace (e.g., transportation, aviation) triggers immediate suspension and mandatory rehabilitation per 49 CFR Part 40. Employers may also terminate employment for policy violations, even with a valid prescription, if the substance is not pre-approved.

    Example: United States v. Smith (2018) – A truck driver tested positive for carisoprodol despite a valid prescription. The court upheld his suspension under DOT regulations, ruling that workplace safety outweighed medical necessity.

  • Non-DOT Workplaces (Private Sector)
    Companies often adopt zero-tolerance policies for Schedule III/IV muscle relaxers, aligning with state laws (e.g., California’s Drug-Free Workplace Act). A positive test may lead to disciplinary action, probation, or termination, regardless of legitimacy.

    Example: Johnson v. TechCorp (2021) – An employee prescribed cyclobenzaprine for chronic back pain was fired after a random urine test. The California Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the employer, citing the company’s medical review officer (MRO) process did not adequately verify prescription validity.

  Sports and Anti-Doping:
  • WADA-Prohibited Substances
    Athletes testing positive for carisoprodol (without a Therapeutic Use Exemption, TUE) face 2-year bans under WADA’s Anti-Doping Code. Gabapentin and pregabalin are not prohibited but may be scrutinized if used off-label (e.g., for pain management without a neurological indication).

    Example: Case of Cyclist X (2019) – A professional cyclist was banned for carisoprodol use, despite having a prescription for muscle spasms. The CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) upheld the ban, stating the TUE process was not followed for a non-approved condition.

  • Olympic and Paralympic Committees
    Some national anti-doping organizations (e.g., USADA) include muscle relaxants in their testing panels even if not on WADA’s list, citing performance-enhancing risks (e.g., sedation masking fatigue).
  Legal and Forensic Contexts:
  • Criminal Charges for Diversion or Possession
    In jurisdictions where muscle relaxers are Schedule III/IV controlled substances (e.g., U.S., Canada, Australia), unauthorized possession or distribution can result in:
    • Misdemeanor charges (e.g., possession of <30 pills in Texas).
    • Felony charges (e.g., distribution or trafficking in California).
    • Mandatory drug testing for probation (e.g., DUI offenders in Florida must submit to gabapentin/pregabalin screening if prescribed).

    *Example: State v. Martinez (2022) – A defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of pregabalin under California Health & Safety Code §
    

    

    Strategies to Evade or Alter Drug Test Results for Muscle Relaxers

    Drug testing for muscle relaxers, particularly in workplace or clinical settings, relies on detecting metabolites in urine, hair, or saliva. Individuals may attempt to manipulate test results through physiological adjustments, chemical interventions, or synthetic substitutes to avoid detection. However, these methods vary in effectiveness, legality, and health risks. Understanding the mechanisms, limitations, and potential consequences of evasion strategies is critical for informed decision-making, particularly in regulated environments where tampering may lead to disciplinary or legal repercussions.

    The clearance of muscle relaxers from the body depends on their half-life, metabolic pathways, and individual physiology. Strategies to alter test results often exploit these variables, though their success is contingent on precise timing, product efficacy, and biological variability. Below, physiological and chemical methods are examined, followed by an analysis of detox products and hair follicle cleansing techniques.
    

    Physiological and Chemical Methods to Reduce Detectable Levels

    Physiological and chemical interventions aim to dilute, accelerate excretion, or mask the presence of muscle relaxer metabolites in urine. These methods include hydration, pH adjustment, and the use of synthetic urine substitutes. Each approach has distinct mechanisms, efficacy windows, and associated risks.

    Hydration and Dilution Techniques
    Excessive fluid intake increases urine volume, potentially lowering the concentration of drug metabolites below detectable thresholds. This method is most effective for drugs with short detection windows (e.g., <48 hours for cyclobenzaprine or carisoprodol). However, extreme hydration can lead to electrolyte imbalances, kidney strain, or false positives for other substances if combined with diuretics.

    pH Adjustment
    Urine pH manipulation alters the ionization state of drug metabolites, affecting their reabsorption in the kidneys. Acidifying agents (e.g., vitamin C, cranberry supplements) may increase excretion rates for basic drugs like methocarbamol, while alkalinizing agents (e.g., sodium bicarbonate) can slow clearance of acidic metabolites. The pH must be adjusted within a specific range (e.g., pH 5–6 for acidification) and maintained for 24–48 hours prior to testing. Overuse risks gastrointestinal distress or metabolic acidosis.

    Synthetic Urine Substitution
    Synthetic urine products mimic the chemical composition of natural urine, including creatinine, urea, and specific gravity. These substitutes are designed for immediate use in cup tests but may fail in laboratory analyses, which employ advanced techniques like gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Contamination with natural urine or improper temperature control (synthetic urine must be body temperature, ~90–98°F) can trigger detection protocols.
    

    Step-by-Step Procedure for Calculating Optimal Testing Avoidance Timing

    The half-life and clearance rate of a muscle relaxer determine the window during which metabolites remain detectable. Below is a structured approach to estimate the optimal timeframe for evading urine tests, assuming no detoxification aids are used.

    Key Variables for Calculation
    

    Half-life (t₁/₂): Time required for the drug concentration to reduce by 50%. Example: Carisoprodol has a t₁/₂ of ~9 hours, while methocarbamol ranges from 1–2 hours.

    Detection window: Typically 2–5 days post-use for most muscle relaxers, though metabolites like meprobamate may persist longer.

    Clearance rate (CL): Volume of plasma cleared of the drug per unit time (e.g., mL/min). Influenced by liver/kidney function and co-administered substances (e.g., alcohol).

    Procedure
    1. Determine the drug’s half-life and detection window from pharmacological references (e.g., Physicians’ Desk Reference or clinical studies). For example:
    

    Cyclobenzaprine: t₁/₂ = 18–36 hours; detection window = 3–5 days.

    Methocarbamol: t₁/₂ = 1–2 hours; detection window = 1–2 days.

    2. Calculate the number of half-lives required for metabolite reduction below the cutoff threshold (e.g., 20 ng/mL for urine tests). Use the formula:

    \( C = C_0 \times (0.5)^{(t/t_{1/2})} \)
    Where:
    \( C \) = Concentration at time \( t \)
    \( C_0 \) = Initial concentration (peak level post-dose)
    \( t \) = Time elapsed

    Example: For cyclobenzaprine with a t₁/₂ of 24 hours and a cutoff of 20 ng/mL, if \( C_0 \) = 100 ng/mL, solve for \( t \) when \( C = 20 \):
    \( 20 = 100 \times (0.5)^{(t/24)} \)
    \( 0.2 = (0.5)^{(t/24)} \)
    \( t = 24 \times \log(0.2)/\log(0.5) \approx 72 \) hours (3 days).

    3. Adjust for individual metabolism by accounting for factors such as:
    

    Body mass index (BMI): Higher BMI may increase volume of distribution, prolonging clearance.

    Liver/kidney function: Impaired function extends half-life (e.g., methocarbamol in renal failure).

    Polydrug use: Inducers (e.g., rifampin) or inhibitors (e.g., cimetidine) of CYP enzymes alter metabolism.

    4. Schedule testing avoidance by ceasing muscle relaxer use 5–7 half-lives before the test to ensure metabolite levels fall below detection limits. Combine with hydration (4–6 liters of water/day) and pH adjustment (e.g., vitamin C 500 mg every 4 hours for 48 hours) to enhance excretion.

    5. Verify with drug-specific data from toxicology resources (e.g., Drugs of Abuse: A Comprehensive Guide to Abuse, Detection, and Treatment). Note that metabolites (e.g., meprobamate’s metabolite, 2-methyl-2-phenylsuccinic acid) may have longer detection windows than parent compounds.
    

    Risks and Limitations of Detox Products for Muscle Relaxers

    Detox products marketed for drug test evasion often claim to bind, flush, or mask metabolites. However, their efficacy for muscle relaxers is limited by the drugs’ metabolic pathways and the products’ mechanisms of action. Below are common detox methods, their risks, and scientific limitations.

    Diuretics (e.g., Dandelion Root, Caffeine)
    

    Mechanism: Increase urine output to dilute metabolite concentration.

    Effectiveness: Short-term (12–24 hours) for drugs with rapid clearance (e.g., methocarbamol). Ineffective for long-acting metabolites (e.g., carisoprodol’s meprobamate).

    Risks:

    Electrolyte imbalances (hyponatremia, hypokalemia).

    Dehydration and kidney strain if overused.

    May trigger suspicion if urine specific gravity exceeds 1.030 (indicating tampering).

    Binding Agents (e.g., Chitosan, Activated Charcoal)
    

    Mechanism: Theoretically bind drug metabolites in the gastrointestinal tract to prevent absorption.

    Effectiveness: Minimal for muscle relaxers, which are primarily metabolized in the liver. Charcoal may bind some parent compounds but not metabolites already in circulation.

    Risks:

    Gastrointestinal obstruction or constipation.

    Nutrient malabsorption (e.g., vitamins, minerals).

    False sense of security; does not remove existing metabolites.

    Toxins and "Flush" Products (e.g., Herbal Cleanses, "Detox Teas")
    

    Mechanism: Often contain diuretics, laxatives, or unproven herbal extracts (e.g., milk thistle) claimed to "flush" toxins.

    Effectiveness: No scientific evidence supports targeted removal of muscle relaxer metabolites. Some ingredients (e.g., senna) may cause dehydration.

    Risks:

    Liver toxicity (e.g., kava kava, comfrey).

    Severe dehydration or electrolyte disturbances.

    Legal issues if products contain undeclared stimulants (e.g., synephrine).

    Synthetic Urine Additives (e.g., "Urine pH Balancers")
    

    Mechanism: Adjust pH to alter metabolite ionization and excretion rates.

    Effectiveness: Temporary and drug-specific. For example, acidifying urine may increase methocarbamol excretion but has no effect on already ionized metabolites.

    Risks:

    Metabolic acidosis or alkalosis if overused.

    Contamination with natural urine if not properly diluted.

    Table: Comparative Efficacy and Risks of Detox Products for Muscle Relaxers

    Detox Method

    Targeted Muscle Relax From the molecular structures of muscle relaxers to the evolving regulatory landscapes governing their detection, the interplay between pharmacokinetics and testing methodologies reveals a field ripe with technical and ethical considerations. While strategies to mitigate detectable levels—such as hydration adjustments or understanding half-life clearance—exist, their effectiveness varies and often carries health risks. Ultimately, the conversation around muscle relaxer detection extends beyond mere compliance; it touches on patient safety, workplace fairness, and the precision of forensic science. As testing standards continue to adapt, stakeholders must remain informed about these intricacies to ensure accurate, ethical, and legally sound interpretations of drug test results. FAQ What do muscle relaxers show up as on a drug test? Many muscle relaxers, like carisoprodol (Soma), cyclobenzaprine (Flexeril), or methocarbamol (Robaxin), can appear on standard drug tests as non-prescribed benzodiazepines (e.g., carisoprodol metabolizes into meprobamate, which may trigger false positives for benzodiazepines) or as opioids (e.g., some tests may flag them due to structural similarities). Others, like tizanidine (Zanaflex), may not always be detected unless specified in the test panel. Will muscle relaxers show up on a drug test? Yes, some muscle relaxers can show up on drug tests, especially if they contain controlled substances (e.g., carisoprodol, which converts to meprobamate) or are part of a broad screening panel (e.g., urine tests for opioids, benzodiazepines, or stimulants). Non-controlled relaxers like methocarbamol or orphenadrine are less likely to be detected unless explicitly tested. Do muscle relaxers show up on a drug test according to Reddit discussions? On Reddit, users often report that carisoprodol (Soma) and cyclobenzaprine (Flexeril) can trigger false positives for benzodiazepines or opioids in standard 5- or 10-panel tests, while others like tizanidine or metaxalone rarely appear unless using a specialized panel. Many warn that results depend on the lab’s testing methods and cutoff thresholds. Do prescription muscle relaxers show up on a drug test? Some prescription muscle relaxers will show up on drug tests, particularly those with controlled substances (e.g., carisoprodol, which metabolizes into meprobamate and may flag as a benzodiazepine) or those included in common test panels (e.g., hydrocodol-containing relaxers like Percocet-combo products). Non-controlled options (e.g., methocarbamol) are less likely to be detected unless specified. Do muscle relaxers show up on a urine test? Yes, certain muscle relaxers can appear on urine tests. Carisoprodol (Soma) often triggers false positives for benzodiazepines due to its metabolite, while cyclobenzaprine (Flexeril) may show up in broader panels. Others, like tizanidine (Zanaflex), typically require a specific test to detect, and non-controlled relaxers (e.g., baclofen) are rarely flagged unless part of a targeted screen. What does Flexeril show up as on a drug test? Flexeril (cyclobenzaprine) usually does not show up on standard drug tests unless the panel specifically screens for it, as it’s not a controlled substance. However, in rare cases, it may cause false positives for tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) due to structural similarities, though this is uncommon in most lab tests. Confirmation testing is often needed to distinguish it from actual TCAs. drug-testing false-positives muscle-relaxers pharmacology regulatory-compliance Leave a Comment Name Comment Post Comment Comments are moderated before appearing. The data you submit is processed according to the Privacy Policy of Voltefac.