SAFETYLIT WEEKLY UPDATE

We compile citations and summaries of about 400 new articles every week.
RSS Feed

HELP: Tutorials | FAQ
CONTACT US: Contact info

Search Results

Journal Article

Citation

Kriikku P, Wilhelm L, Jenckel S, Rintatalo J, Hurme J, Kramer J, Wayne Jones A, Ojanperä I. Forensic Sci. Int. 2014; 239C: 57-61.

Affiliation

Department of Forensic Medicine, Hjelt Institute, University of Helsinki, Finland.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2014, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.03.019

PMID

24747668

Abstract

Hand-held electronic breath-alcohol analyzers are widely used by police authorities in their efforts to detect drunken drivers and to improve road-traffic safety. Over a three month period, the results of roadside breath-alcohol tests of drivers apprehended in Finland were compared with venous blood alcohol concentration (BAC). The mean (median) time between sampling blood and breath was 0.71h (0.58h) with a range from 0 to 6h. Some hand-held instruments gave results as the concentration of alcohol in breath and were converted into BAC assuming a blood-breath alcohol ratio (BBR) of 2260. The mean venous BAC (1.82g/kg) in traffic offenders was higher than the result predicted by the hand-held breath analyzers (1.72g/kg). In 1875 roadside tests, the relationship between venous BAC (x) and BrAC (y) was defined by the regression equation y=0.18+0.85x. The coefficients show both a constant bias (y-intercept 0.18g/kg) and a proportional bias (slope=0.85). The residual standard deviation (SD), an indicator of random variation, was ±0.40g/kg. After BAC results were corrected for the time elapsed between sampling blood and breath, the y-intercept decreased to 0.10g/kg and 0.004g/kg, respectively, when low (0.1g/kg/h) and high (0.25g/kg/h) rates of alcohol elimination were used. The proportional bias of 0.85 shows that the breath-alcohol test result reads lower than the actual BAC by 15% on average. This suggests that the BBR of 2260 used for calibration should be increased by about 15% to give closer agreement between BAC and BrAC. Because of the large random variation (SD±0.40g/kg), there is considerable uncertainty if and when results from the roadside screening test are used to estimate venous BAC. The roadside breath-alcohol screening instruments worked well for the purpose of selecting drivers above the statutory limit of 0.50g/kg.


Language: en

NEW SEARCH


All SafetyLit records are available for automatic download to Zotero & Mendeley
Print