Breath alcohol concentration determined with a new analyzer using free exhalation predicts almost precisely the arterial blood alcohol concentration

A new breath alcohol (ethanol) analyzer has been developed, which allows free exhalation, standardizes measured exhaled alcohol concentration to fully saturated water vapor at a body temperature of 37 degrees C (43.95 mg/L) and includes a built-in self-calibration system. We evaluated the performance of this instrument by comparing standardized alcohol concentration in freely expired breath (BrAC) with arterial (ABAC) and venous (VBAC) blood alcohol concentrations in fifteen healthy volunteers who drank 0.6 g of alcohol per kg body weight. The precision (coefficient of variation, CV) of the analyzer based on in vivo duplicate measurements in all phases of the alcohol metabolism was 1.7%. The ABAC/BrAC ratio was 2251+/-46 (mean+/-S.D.) in the post-absorptive phase and the mean bias between ABAC and BrAC x 2251 was 0.0035 g/L with 95% limits of agreement of 0.033 and -0.026. The ABAC and BrAC x 2251 were highly correlated (r=0.998, p<0.001) and the regression relationship was ABAC = 0.00045 + 1.0069 x (BrAC x 2251) indicating excellent agreement and no fixed or proportional bias. In the absorption phase, ABAC exceeded BrAC x 2251 by at most 0.04+/-0.03 g/L when tests were made at 10 min post-dosing (p<0.05). The VBAC/BrAC ratio never stabilized and varied continuously between 1834 and 3259. There was a proportional bias between VBAC and BrAC x 2251 (ABAC) in the post-absorptive phase (p<0.001). The pharmacokinetic analysis of the elimination rates of alcohol and times to zero BAC confirmed that BrAC x 2251 and ABAC agreed very well with each other, but not with VBAC (p<0.001). We conclude that this new breath analyzer using free exhalation has a high precision for in vivo testing. The BrAC reflects very accurately ABAC in the post-absorption phase and substantially well in the absorption phase and thereby reflects the concentration of alcohol reaching the brain. Our findings highlight the magnitude of arterio-venous differences in alcohol concentration and support the use of breath alcohol analyzers as a stand-alone test for medical and legal purposes.     

Comparison of ethanol concentrations in venous blood and end-expired breath during a controlled drinking study

Concentration-time profiles of ethanol were determined for venous whole blood and end-expired breath during a controlled drinking experiment in which healthy men (n=9) and women (n=9) drank 0.40-0.65 g ethanol per kg body weight in 20-30 min. Specimens of blood and breath were obtained for analysis of ethanol starting at 50-60 min post-dosing and then every 30-60 min for 3-6 h. This protocol furnished 130 blood-breath pairs for statistical evaluation. Blood-ethanol concentration (BAC, mg/g) was determined by headspace gas chromatography and breath-ethanol concentration (BrAC, mg/2l) was determined with a quantitative infrared analyzer (Intoxilyzer 5000S), which is the instrument currently used in Sweden for legal purposes. In 18 instances the Intoxilyzer 5000S gave readings of 0.00 mg/2l whereas the actual BAC was 0.08 mg/g on average (range 0.04-0.15 mg/g). The remaining 112 blood- and breath-alcohol measurements were highly correlated (r=0.97) and the regression relationship was BAC=0.10+0.91BrAC and the residual standard deviation (S.D.) was 0.042 mg/g (8.4%). The slope (0.91+/-0.0217) differed significantly from unity being 9% low and the intercept (0.10+/-0.0101) deviated from zero (t=10.2, P<0.001), indicating the presence of both proportional and constant bias, respectively. The mean bias (BAC - BrAC) was 0.068 mg/g and the 95% limits of agreement were -0.021 and 0.156 mg/g. The average BAC/BrAC ratio was 2448+/-540 (+/-S.D.) with a median of 2351 and 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of 1836 and 4082. We found no significant gender-related differences in BAC/BrAC ratios, being 2553+/-576 for men and 2417+/-494 for women (t=1.34, P>0.05). The mean rate of ethanol disappearance from blood was 0.157+/-0.021 mg/(g per hour), which was very close to the elimination rate from breath of 0.161+/-0.021 mg/(2l per hour) (P>0.05). Breath-test results obtained with Intoxilyzer 5000S (mg/2l) were generally less than the coexisting concentrations of ethanol in venous blood (mg/g), which gives an advantage to the suspect who provides breath compared with blood in cases close to a threshold alcohol limit.     

Variability in the Blood/Breath Alcohol Ratio and Implications for Evidentiary Purposes

The breath analyzer is an indispensable tool for identifying alcohol levels among drivers. While numerous studies have shown high correlations between blood and breath alcohol concentrations, most are limited by the study design. This study seeks to assess this relationship by minimizing potential measurement bias, document time from alcohol consumption to testing, and adjusting for potential confounders. A blinded study was performed using conditions closely resembling those in the field. The Draeger 7110 MKIII IL breath analyzer was used to assess breath alcohol concentrations (BrAC). Participants were 61 healthy volunteers aged 21–37 years with body mass index ≤30 and no history of alcoholism. A total of 242 valid blood/breath tests were performed in four test sets. The study results showed a high correlation coefficient between BrAC and blood alcohol concentration (BAC) levels (r = 0.983) with high sensitivity (97%) and specificity (93%). This strong association between the breath analyzer and BAC persisted even after adjustment for various stages of alcohol absorption. These results illustrate the high diagnostic sensitivity of the breath analyzer in field‐tested conditions.     

Reliability of breath-alcohol analysis in individuals with gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is widespread in the population among all age groups and in both sexes. The reliability of breath alcohol analysis in subjects suffering from GERD is unknown. We investigated the relationship between breath-alcohol concentration (BrAC) and blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) in 5 male and 5 female subjects all suffering from severe gastroesophageal reflux disease and scheduled for antireflux surgery. Each subject served in two experiments in random order about 1-2 weeks apart. Both times they drank the same dose of ethanol (approximately 0.3 g/kg) as either beer, white wine, or vodka mixed with orange juice before venous blood and end-expired breath samples were obtained at 5-10 min intervals for 4 h. An attempt was made to provoke gastroesophageal reflux in one of the drinking experiments by applying an abdominal compression belt. Blood-ethanol concentration was determined by headspace gas chromatography and breath-ethanol was measured with an electrochemical instrument (Alcolmeter SD-400) or a quantitative infrared analyzer (Data-Master). During the absorption of alcohol, which occurred during the first 90 min after the start of drinking, BrAC (mg/210 L) tended to be the same or higher than venous BAC (mg/dL). In the post-peak phase, the BAC always exceeded BrAC. Four of the 10 subjects definitely experienced gastric reflux during the study although this did not result in widely deviant BrAC readings compared with BAC when sampling occurred at 5-min intervals. We conclude that the risk of alcohol erupting from the stomach into the mouth owing to gastric reflux and falsely increasing the result of an evidential breath-alcohol test is highly improbable.     

The rate of dissipation of mouth alcohol in alcohol positive subjects

Seven subjects participated in a two-part study to evaluate mouth alcohol dissipation in alcohol positive subjects. In part one, subjects rinsed their mouths with a vodka solution and were breath tested after 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 min intervals. On average, breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) decreased 20.4% (range 3.2-47.9%) between 1 and 2 min after rinsing. In part two of the study, multiple breath tests were administered after rinsing once with the vodka solution. The BrAC decreased more than 0.020 g/210 L between the first and second tests for all subjects (average 0.095 g/210 L, range 0.021-0.162 g/210 L). The average time for subjects to reach their unbiased BrAC was 9.35 min (range 4-13 min) after rinsing. This study reaffirms the need for duplicate breath testing and confirms that the minimum of a 15-min observation period is sufficient for mouth alcohol to dissipate in alcohol positive subjects.     

New Zealand's breath and blood alcohol testing programs: further data analysis and forensic implications

Paired blood and breath alcohol concentrations (BAC, in g/dL, and BrAC, in g/210 L), were determined for 11,837 drivers apprehended by the New Zealand Police. For each driver, duplicate BAC measurements were made using headspace gas chromatography and duplicate BrAC measurements were made with either Intoxilyzer 5000, Seres 679T or Seres 679ENZ Ethylometre infrared analysers. The variability of differences between duplicate results is described in detail, as well as the variability of differences between the paired BrAC and BAC results. The mean delay between breath and blood sampling was 0.73 h, ranging from 0.17 to 3.1 8h. BAC values at the time of breath testing were estimated by adjusting BAC results using an assumed blood alcohol clearance rate. The paired BrAC and time-adjusted BAC results were analysed with the aim of estimating the proportion of false-positive BrAC results, using the time-adjusted BAC results as references. When BAC results were not time-adjusted, the false-positive rate (BrAC>BAC) was 31.3% but after time-adjustment using 0.019 g/dL/h as the blood alcohol clearance rate, the false-positive rate was only 2.8%. However, harmful false-positives (defined as cases where BrAC>0.1 g/210L, while BAC< or =0.1g/dL) occurred at a rate of only 0.14%. When the lower of duplicate breath test results were used as the evidential results instead of the means, the harmful false-positive rate dropped to 0.04%.     

Elimination rates of breath alcohol

Legal driving limits are set coequally with 0.5 g/L blood alcohol concentration (BAC) or 0.25 mg/L breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) in Austria as well as in other European countries. As mostly some time elapses between BrAC measurement and driving offence, a back calculation of alcohol concentrations is often required. The calculation of hourly BrAC elimination rates can thereby help to avoid unnecessary variances. A study with 59 participants was performed under social conditions. BrAC was determined with the legally accredited Alcotest 7110 MK III A every 30 min, and concomitantly venous blood samples were drawn. Five hundred and four BrAC/BAC value pairs were evaluated. The overall mean peak BrAC was calculated with 0.456 mg/L (±0.119 mg/L standard deviation). The mean hourly BrAC elimination rate was overall determined with 0.082 mg/L per h (0.050–0.114, 95% range). Mean rate of females (0.087 mg/L h⁻¹) and the according 95% limits were statistically significantly higher than of males (mean rate 0.078 mg/L h⁻¹, p < 0.04). Our results confirm the possibility to implement hourly BrAC elimination rates, provided that adequate statistical ranges and basic forensic scientific rules that have been set up for alcohol back calculations are observed.     

A study concerning the blood/breath alcohol conversion factor Q: concentration dependency and its applicability in daily routine

The conversion factor Q, obtained by division of blood alcohol concentration (BAC) by breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) is a widely discussed topic due to its great variance. By Austrian law, regulations frequently require an estimation of a corresponding BAC by a measured BrAC. It is known that Q depends among other things, on the alcohol kinetic state of the person being tested, which mathematically can be transformed to a dependency on the BrAC. Theoretically calculated Q values per BrAC level form a hyperbola shaped curve, thus decreasing with increasing BrAC values. Applying Austrian forensic standards for BAC and BrAC measurements, these calculations were verified in a study under practical conditions with BAC and BrAC data of 390 individuals. Q decreases from 2629 (+/- 455) for BrAC levels < 0.1 mg/l to 2229 (+/- 160) for a BrAC range of 0.4-0.5 mg/l and increases again to 2428 (+/- 124) for BrAC levels > 0.6 mg/l. Since these results were obtained under realistic practical conditions they can be directly applied in routine forensic expert opinion and can eliminate avoidable variances in the calculation of Q.     

A large-scale study of the relationship between blood and breath alcohol concentrations in New Zealand drinking drivers

Blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) and corresponding breath alcohol concentrations (BrAC) were determined for 21,582 drivers apprehended by New Zealand police. BAC was measured using headspace gas chromatography, and BrAC was determined with Intoxilyzer 5000 or Seres Ethylometre infrared analysers. The delay (DEL) between breath testing and blood sampling ranged from 0.03 to 5.4 h. BAC/BrAC ratios were calculated before and after BAC values were corrected for DEL using 19 mg/dL/h as an estimate of the blood alcohol clearance rate. Calculations were performed for single and duplicate breath samples obtained using the Intoxilyzer (groups I-1 and I-2) and Seres devices (groups S-1 and S-2). Before correction for DEL, BAC/BrAC ratios for groups I-1, I-2, S-1, and S-2 were (mean+/-SD) 2320+/-260, 2180+/-242, 2330+/-276, and 2250+/-259, respectively. After BAC values were adjusted for DEL, BAC/BrAC ratios for these groups were (mean+/-SD) 2510+/-256, 2370+/-240, 2520+/-280, and 2440+/-260, respectively. Our results indicate that in New Zealand the mean BAC/BrAC ratio is 19-26% higher than the ratio of the respective legal limits (2000).     

The effect of dentures and denture adhesives on mouth alcohol retention.

A total of 24 alcohol-free, denture-wearing subjects were tested for mouth-alcohol retention times with an Intoxilyzer 5000. The subjects were given 30 mL doses of 80 proof brandy to swish in their mouths without swallowing for 2 min prior to expectorating the dose. Subjects were tested under three conditions: 1) with dentures removed, 2) with dentures held loosely in place without an adhesive, and 3) with dentures plus an adhesive. Beyond 20 min following expectoration, mouth alcohol made no significant contribution to the apparent breath alcohol concentration (BrAC), with trace (less than or equal to 0.01 g/210 L) readings found in only two of the subjects. Denture use, both with and without the concurrent use of adhesives does not significantly affect BrAC as long as a pretest alcohol deprivation period of 20 min is observed.     

Comparing roadside with subsequent breath alcohol analyses and their relevance to the issue of retrograde extrapolation.

Driving while intoxicated (DWI) legislation requires proving the critical breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) at the time of driving. With time delayed analysis, retrograde extrapolation is occasionally employed but has several uncertainties associated with it. The present study attempts to address whether subjects actually arrested for DWI are likely to have BrAC values near the time of driving differing largely from those performed at a subsequent time. Selected officers arrested n = 161 subjects where roadside BrAC was determined with Pre-Arrest Breath Test (PBT) devices along with subsequent duplicate evidential analyses followed by an additional PBT analysis. These two sets of duplicates, one with large time interval (mean = 63.5 min.) and one with a 2-3 min difference, were then compared by several statistical methods. The results showing duplicate variability did not differ when the long time interval existed (F = 1.0, P > 0.05). A small but significant decrease in BrAC with respect to time appeared for the duplicate PBT data. Retrograde extrapolation applied to the data employing an assumed 0.015 g/210 l/h yielded a small but significant overestimate of the actual roadside PBT result. Finally, evidentiary analyses performed within 2 h of driving will provide good estimates and certainly not overestimates, of the BrAC existing at the time of driving and it appears that extrapolation may be unwarranted in these cases.     

A controlled study of the time-course of breath alcohol concentration after moderate ingestion of ethanol following a social drinking session

This paper evaluates the breath alcohol concentration (BrAC), nausea (feeling of being slightly intoxicated) and subjective driving performance after ingesting a moderate dose of alcohol in the presence of a light meal, which intends to approach a social drinking setting. 119 healthy individuals (69 males and 50 females, aged 21.7+/-3.0) ingested three glasses of wine (95mL each) and their BrAC was determined by an Alcotest 7410 at 15, 30, 45, 60, 90 and 120min post-drinking. 46% of females and no male subjects exceeded a BrAC of 0.25mg/L, the legal limit for driving fixed by some Western countries. 53% of the study population felt nausea during the experimental session and 20% self-reported impairment of their driving skills. In both cases these subjective effects were more pronounced in females. The major determinants of mean BrAC were time post-drinking, gender (male) and body mass index (BMI), all these variables being inversely associated. Females and individuals with a BMI lower than 22.5kg/m(2) were at an increased risk of exceeding the legal limit of BrAC. The feeling of nausea was significantly associated with gender (females), the ingestion of up to 2 drinks on weekdays, and having exceeded a BrAC of 0.25mg/L during the experimental study. The main predictor of self-perception of impaired driving skills was the feeling of nausea, followed by a BrAC in excess of 0.25mg/L. In conclusion, both females and subjects with lower BMI are at an increased risk of exceeding the legal limit of BrAC after moderate alcohol consumption resembling a social drinking setting.     

Evaluation of breath alcohol instruments II. In vivo experiments with Alcolmeter Pocket Model

The precision and accuracy of an Alcolmeter Pocket Model breath alcohol instrument have been investigated in experiments with human subjects under controlled conditions. The instrument response was zero in all tests with breath samples from alcohol-free subjects. The standard deviations of ethanol determinations in breath were ±0.0722 mg/ml during ethanol absorption and ±0.0416 mg/ml during ethanol elimination. The standard deviation during the elimination phase increased with ethanol concentration in the sample, being ±0.0416 mg/ml on average at a mean concentration of 0.420 mg/ml, corresponding to a coefficient of variation of 9.9%.The blood alcohol estimates using the Alcolmeter were somewhat too high during active absorption of ethanol, and too low during elimination, when a constant blood-breath alcohol ratio of 2100:1 was used to calibrate the instrument. During the elimination phase of ethanol kinetics and at a mean blood alcohol concentration of 0.50 mg/ml, the mean Alcolmeter result was 0.456 ± 0.169 mg/ml with 95% confidence, i.e. varying between 0.287 and 0.625 mg/ml 95 times out of 100 tests at this critical blood alcohol level.     

Reflections on variability in the blood–breath ratio of ethanol and its importance when evidential breath-alcohol instruments are used in law enforcement

Variability in the blood–breath ratio (BBR) of alcohol is important, because it relates a measurement of the blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) with the co-existing breath-alcohol concentration (BrAC). The BBR is also used to establish the statutory BrAC limit for driving from the existing statutory BAC limits in different countries. The in-vivo BBR depends on a host of analytical, sampling and physiological factors, including subject demographics, time after end of drinking (rising or falling BAC), the nature of the blood draw (whether venous or arterial) and the subject’s breathing pattern prior to exhalation into the breath analyzer. The results from a controlled drinking study involving healthy volunteers (85 men and 15 women) from three ethnic groups (Caucasians, Hispanics and African Americans) were used to evaluate various factors influencing the BBR. Ethanol in breath was determined with a quantitative infrared analyzer (Intoxilyzer 8000) and BAC was determined by headspace gas chromatography (HS-GC). The BAC and BrAC were highly correlated (r = 0.948) and the BBR in the post-absorptive state was 2 382 ± 119 (mean ± SD). The BBR did not depend on gender (female: 2 396 ± 101 and male: 2 380 ± 123, P > 0.05) nor on racial group (Caucasians 2 398 ± 124, African Americans 2 344 ± 119 and Hispanics 2 364 ± 104, P > 0.05). The BBR was lower in subjects with higher breath- and body-temperatures (P < 0.05) and it also decreased with longer exhalation times into the breath-analyzer (P < 0.001). In the post-absorptive state, none of the 100 subjects had a BBR of less than 2 100:1.     

The Effects of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease on Forensic Breath Alcohol Testing

Fifteen test subjects, 10 of whom were diagnosed with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), were dosed with alcohol to BACs above 0.150 g/dL. Blood and breath assays taken at 20-min intervals for 8 h after dosing demonstrated close agreement between postabsorptive BAC and BrAC values. Three subjects exhibited elevated breath alcohol concentrations up to 0.105 g/dL during the absorptive phase that were apparently due to the passage of gastric alcohol through the lower esophageal sphincter not attributable to eruction or regurgitation. The effect of gastric alcohol was not consistently proportional to the amount of unabsorbed gastric alcohol. Absorption of alcohol in the esophagus explains the nonproportionality. Breath samples contaminated by GERD-related alcohol leakage from the stomach into a breath sample were found only when there was a high concentration of alcohol in the stomach. When contaminated breath samples were encountered, they were irreproducible in magnitude.     

Evaluation of breath alcohol instruments I. In vitro experiments with Alcolmeter Pocket Model

An Alcolmeter Pocket Model breath alcohol device, based on an electrochemical (fuel cell) oxidation principle for ethanol analysis, has been evaluated under in vitro conditions. The result of a test is displayed on an analogue meter within 20 – 30 seconds after sampling; replicate tests may be made within 3 – 5 minutes. The electrochemical detector used was found to respond to acetaldehyde, methanol, isopropanol and n-propanol vapours besides ethanol, but it was insensitive to acetone vapour. The Alcolmeter response with a 0 – 2.0 mg/ml scale was linearly related to ethanol vapour concentration up to 1.0 mg/ml blood alcohol equivalent concentration; above this level the response was curvilinear, the Alcolmeter reading being too low. The standard deviation of an ethanol vapour determination in vitro was ±0.0175 mg/ml at a mean concentration of 0.902 mg/ml. The accuracy of the device expressed as percent recovery at 0.50, 1.0 and 1.4 mg/ml blood alcohol concentrations was 96.8%, 98.3%, and 88.3%, respectively. When the Alcolmeter was calibrated at 0.50 mg/ml and used occasionally each day over an 18-day period, the drop in initial calibration was 0.01 mg/ml per week.     

The elimination rate of mouth alcohol: mathematical modeling and implications in breath alcohol analysis.

Mouth alcohol, if present in high enough concentrations, can falsely bias the accurate measurement of end-expiratory breath alcohol. Mouth alcohol will be eliminated over time, however, and can be modeled with a single term decaying exponential of the form: B0e-kt + C. It is important, however, to determine the model and its parameters when alcohol is already present within the biologic system. Using three individuals as their own controls, mouth alcohol was administered both before and after alcohol consumption followed by breath alcohol analysis performed at approximately 0.5 min intervals. The results showed that both model parameters (B0 and k) are effected and that the asymptotic value (C) is reached much sooner when alcohol already exists in the end-expiratory breath. Considering only three individuals were involved, the forensic-science importance appears to be that, as the end-expiratory breath alcohol concentration increases, the time necessary for the mouth alcohol to decrease to unbiased levels is decreased. Fifteen min of observation time prior to breath alcohol analysis appears to be more than adequate at forensically relevant concentrations.     

Determination of mouth alcohol using the Dräger Evidential Portable Alcohol System

Drivers suspected of alcohol intoxication are observed for a period of 15 min prior to quantitative breath alcohol testing. This is to preclude the interference of alcohol-based substances such as cough medicine, mouthwash, and breath spray just prior to actual evidential testing. To determine whether a 15 min observation period was necessary when performing evidential breath tests in the field, a mouth alcohol experiment was performed using the Dräger Evidential Portable Alcohol System (EPAS). Five types of alcohol beverages and the effects of expectorating versus swallowing were tested on twenty-five volunteer subjects. Serial measurements of breath and blood alcohol levels were performed at fixed time intervals. All alcohol beverage types gave two sequential measurements within 0.02 g/210 L of each other before 15 min had passed. Fifteen minutes was necessary to ensure there was no residual mouth alcohol. If the 15 min waiting period was not observed, the safety feature of the EPAS requiring two sequential measurements 2 min apart within 0.02 g/210 L would not ensure against mouth alcohol interference.     

Handling of inspired vaporized ethanol in the airways and lungs (with comments on forensic aspects)

Collections of expired air and chemical determinations of ethanol concentrations in inspired and expired air showed that during prolonged inspiration of ethanol (vapour)-containing air about 55% was absorbed by adult human subjects. The fractional absorption was not detectably affected by variations in tidal volume (0.7-2.1 liters), nor was it significantly reduced in experiments where, due to preceding oral intake, the ethanol concentration of systemic blood was up to 50 times higher than that of inspired air. In these experiments the difference between the rates of change in blood alcohol concentration (beta 60) during and before ethanol inhalation agreed well with values calculated from measured respiratory absorptions. Mass spectrometric recordings of ethanol concentration in expired air vs. expired volume, taken in a state of steady uptake, also gave absorption fractions of about 0.55, and showed that the concentration in end-expiratory air did not fall below some 30% of that of the inspired air. These and other findings show that a large part of ethanol being inspired is deposited in the airway linings to be released again to ethanol-free alveolar air expired through the airways. It is concluded that inspired ethanol deserves consideration as a source of elevations of blood alcohol concentrations.     

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.