Citation

Wigmore JG. J. Can. Soc. Forensic Sci. 2009; 42(2): 147-151.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2009, Canadian Society of Forensic Science, Publisher Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/00085030.2009.10757603

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The widespread use of hand sanitizers containing high alcohol concentrations (60-95% v/v ethanol) has resulted in a new defence against the charge of drinking and driving. It is commonly known as the Purell® defence, named after a popular hand sanitizer. In this type of defence it is alleged that the blood and breath alcohol concentrations detected in the arrested driver are due to the absorption of alcohol through the skin by frequent use of a hand sanitizer. A reported case of the trial of a United States congressman who used this defence is presented. A literature review of studies on the dermal absorption of alcohol since 1942 was conducted. This review concluded that there was no significant absorption of alcohol through the skin of adults by the use of hand sanitizers and hence would not produce forensically significant elevated breath or blood alcohol concentrations.