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

Abstract

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.

Fuel-cell breathalyser use for field research on alcohol intoxication: an independent psychometric evaluation

“…To our knowledge this research constitutes the first non-forensic and independent investigation on the psychometric properties of portable breathalysers for field research. Previous investigations (e.g., Gullberg, 2003 ; Zuba, 2008 ; Schechtman & Shinar, 2011 ; Leonard, 2012 ) analysed the precision and reliability of various breathalysers in forensic and laboratory studies. We have built upon this research by conducting studies which are generalisable to the population field researchers intend to sample.…”

“…It is important to note, however, that an EB is more expensive, requires training to operate and takes longer to administer and test aBAC. In contrast, the EB is generally less susceptible to mouth alcohol ( Leonard, 2012 ).…”

“…This is the presence of alcohol that remains in the lining of the mouth, which exaggerates the aBAC ( Black, 2017 ). Fuel-cell detectors are confounded by mouth alcohol, because the detector cannot differentiate between mouth or breath alcohol ( Leonard, 2012 ). In general, mouth alcohol has a greater influence on individuals with low BAC, because it has an inversely proportional dissipation rate with actual BAC ( Gullberg, 1992 ).…”

“…However, this decrease could be attributed to irregular breath patterns, error at high aBAC readings and other external influences ( Gullberg, 2003 ). Researchers could reduce the impact of mouth alcohol by setting a minimum 10-minute exclusion period since their last drink before participants are ready for breath sampling (e.g., Leonard, 2012 ) or by having water available for mouth rinsing.…”

An electrical characterisation system for the real-time acquisition of multiple independent sensing parameters from organic thin film transistors

“…To test this instrument, we characterised an OTFT with polymer OSC "PBTTT" (poly(2,5-bis(3-hexadecylthiophen-2-yl)thieno(3,2-b)thiophene) under exposure to ethanol (EtOH) odour. This is not meant to lead to a practical sensor device -EtOH odour sensors are well established (fuel-cell based "breathalysers"; Leonard, 2012) -but to provide a realistic yet generic proof-of-concept. However, given the strong scientific interest that PBTTT has attracted since its introduction in 2006 (Mcculloch et al, 2006), studying its behaviour under EtOH has scientific merit in itself: it is known that exposure to EtOH may lead to morphological changes in other thiophene polymers (Jiang-Feng et al, 2011;Nam et al, 2010), but this has not yet been investigated for PBTTT.…”