Duplicate Breath Alcohol Testing: Should the Statutory wait in Canada of “at least 15 Minutes” Between Tests be Changed?

Wigmore, J.G.; House, C.J.; Langille, R.M.

doi:10.1080/00085030.2005.10757580

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar results were reported by Wigmore et al. (19) where only 2% of corrected duplicate tests were not within ±0.020 g/210 L of each other. In the present study, the mean absolute deviation between duplicate tests was 0.006 g/210 L while the median was 0.004 g/210 L. The median value is less affected by outliers that will influence the mean and thus is a better measure of the central tendency in duplicate test differences.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Evaluation of the Analytical Performance of a Fuel Cell Breath Alcohol Testing Instrument: A Seven‐Year Comprehensive Study

Leonard

2012

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Between 2003 and 2009, 54,255 breath test sequences were performed on 129 AlcoSensor IV-XL evidential instruments in Orange County, CA. The overall mean breath alcohol concentration and standard deviation from these tests was 0.141 ± 0.051 g/210 L. Of these test sequences, 38,580 successfully resulted in two valid breath alcohol results, with 97.5% of these results agreeing within ±0.020 g/210 L of each other and 86.3% within ±0.010 g/210 L. The mean absolute difference between duplicate tests was 0.006 g/210 L with a median of 0.004 g/210 L. Of the 2.5% of duplicate test results that did not agree within ±0.020 g/210 L, 95% of these had a breath alcohol concentration of 0.10 g/210 L or greater and 77% had an alcohol concentration of 0.15 g/210 L or greater. The data indicate that the AlcoSensor IV-XL can measure a breath sample for alcohol concentration with adequate precision even amid the effects of biological variations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Evaluation of the Analytical Performance of a Fuel Cell Breath Alcohol Testing Instrument: A Seven‐Year Comprehensive Study

Leonard

2012

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some variation in results may occur due to different breath sampling criteria or protocols in other jurisdictions not included in this study. For example, Canada's protocol requires waiting at least 15 min between the duplicate breath samples [11]. However, a method for modeling and analysis of duplicate tests has been presented here that can be applied to any forensic breath or blood alcohol testing program that performs duplicates.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors contributing to the variability observed in duplicate forensic breath alcohol measurement

Gullberg¹,

Polissar²

2011

J. Breath Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several factors contribute to the variability observed among repeated measurements of breath alcohol concentration. Identifying these factors and the magnitude of their contribution is the focus of this study. Large breath alcohol data sets consisting of duplicate test results from drivers arrested for driving while intoxicated were obtained from four jurisdictions: Sweden, Alabama, New Jersey and Washington State. The absolute difference between duplicate results were fitted to a multivariate linear regression model which included the following predictor variables: mean breath alcohol concentration, absolute exhalation time difference between repeated measurements, absolute exhalation volume difference, gender and age. In all data sets considered here, the breath alcohol concentration was the most statistically and practically significant predictor of absolute difference between the duplicate results. The next two most important predictors to enter models for all jurisdictions were exhalation volume difference and exhalation time difference. The maximum multivariate R² for any jurisdiction, however, was only 0.24, suggesting that other factors not considered here may be of importance. Two predictors over which the subject would have some influence included exhalation time and volume. When these were set at values expected to have maximum impact, the effect on duplicate test differences was very small, 0.008 g/210 L or less in all jurisdictions, indicating that subject manipulation of exhalation time and volume would have at most a very small systematic effect on estimated breath alcohol concentration. This study presents multivariate models useful for identifying the impact of five variables that may influence breath test variability.

show abstract

Determining an Appropriate Standard for Duplicate Breath Test Agreement

Gullberg¹

2006

Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Duplicate Breath Alcohol Testing: Should the Statutory wait in Canada of “at least 15 Minutes” Between Tests be Changed?

Cited by 5 publications

References 20 publications

Evaluation of the Analytical Performance of a Fuel Cell Breath Alcohol Testing Instrument: A Seven‐Year Comprehensive Study

Evaluation of the Analytical Performance of a Fuel Cell Breath Alcohol Testing Instrument: A Seven‐Year Comprehensive Study

Factors contributing to the variability observed in duplicate forensic breath alcohol measurement

Determining an Appropriate Standard for Duplicate Breath Test Agreement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About