Douglas S. Lançon/ Ben N. Vetter Breath Alcohol/Toxicology Montana DOJ-FSD Laboratory

Douglas S. Lançon/ Ben N. Vetter Breath Alcohol/Toxicology Montana DOJ-FSD Laboratory

Breath Test Field Certification(s) Ideally you should have the field certification prior and after the date of the test (within 31 days of one another) Breath Test Specialist certifications for the officers involved in the Breath Test and Field Certifications Gas Approval Notice for each gas lot involved Annual Lab Certification.

Explanation of the Breath Test Report Form Significance of each quality control step Tolerance for each step (+/- allowed)

Definition and purpose Tolerance for each step 31 day rule

Definition Report What is involved in this process Do you need the report only or the entire work product from the certification

NIST traceability Gas levels allowed on Intoxilyzer vs. PBT tests

Where should you look for all these documents Breath Test Field Certification(s) ú Ideally you should have the field certification prior and after the date of the test (within 31 days of one another) Breath Test Specialist certifications for the officers involved in the Breath Test and Field Certifications Gas Approval Notice for each gas lot involved Annual Lab Certification. The agency should be able to provide you with all these documents with the exception of the work product of the Annual Lab Certification.

The Intoxilyzer 8000 is somehow not accurate enough for alcohol testing False positive BrAC readings or elevated readings due to interfering substances Mouth Alcohol falsely elevates BrAC results on the Intoxilyzer 8000 Body temperature due to fever, nervousness or excitement elevating a BrAC result Blood to Breath ratio differences from person to person

The BrAC increases with the volume blown to a falsely elevated concentration The Intoxilyzer 8000 only performs 4 analyses on a sample Elevation differences from the calibration site elevation cause erroneous BrAC readings Propagation of Error Radio Frequency Interference has not been fully tested

When tested using NIST traceable standards, the instrument responds within +/- 5% or 0.005g/210L (whichever is the higher value) This is on par with blood analyses of traceable standards Subject tests can vary more due to our limited ability to collect a pure sample (not diluted with fresh breaths of air) The instrument analyzes samples continuously at a rate of 4x per second (not only 4 samples) This continuous sampling is important in determining sample quality (slope detection)

The measured error rate or Uncertainty of Measurement for Intoxilyzer 8000 instruments in use in Montana is 5% or +/- 0.005g/210L (whichever is the greater value) CMI 3% or 0.003g/210L (whichever is the higher value) Again, when instruments in the field are not able to measure the attached traceable gas standards within these parameters that instrument will automatically disable itself. This type of check is done twice during every valid evidentiary breath test in this state.

We have tested many different potential interfering substances some more plausible than others. One recent hypothesis was that lipstick interfered with a breath test. Testing of the brand in question (the actual color/variety was never divulged to us) as well as countless lipsticks, lip balms and other lip treatments found no instance where a false BrAC was produced To date we have not found a substance that causes a result in excess of our expected error rate. Every test has resulted in either 0.000g/210L or the interferent detected reading

The bread experiment A subject was tested to make sure instrument read 0.000 The subject chewed a piece of bread Waited 2 minutes and tested the Instrument Results 0.04 BAC Shocking? Of course not! Bread is made with yeast fermentation of flour to create air pockets in the final product alcohol is formed as well What happens after 9-11 minutes? 0.000g/210L

All of these Peer Reviewed Scientific Articles (and others) agree that with a 15 minute or greater deprivation period and two breath samples separated by a few minutes, mouth alcohol is not an issue. In fact, this idea has been recognized and part of the ACCEPTABLE PRACTICES FOR EVIDENTIAL BREATH-ALCOHOL TESTING since the mid 1980 s. (http://www.nsc.org/get_involved/divisions/documents/acceptable%20practices%20for%20evidential%20breath %20ALCOHOL%20TESTING.pdf)

At constant temperature and pressure the concentration of a volatile substance in a water solution is directly proportional to the concentration (or partial vapor pressure) in the air above that solution (headspace).

In a sealed container containing water and ethanol, the amount of ethanol in the water part will come to a fixed ratio with the ethanol in the air part after the solution is allowed to equilibrate at constant temperature (and pressure). This all happens in a true Closed System

Obviously, the human body isn t a closed system (a sealed fixed volume container) Also, body temperatures aren t fixed The range for normal human body temperatures, taken orally, is between 36.3 and 37.3 C (97.3 and 99.1 F). (up or down ½ C) Mackowiak, P. A.; S. S. Wasserman, M. M. Levine (1992-09- 23). "A critical appraisal of 98.6 degrees F, the upper limit of the normal body temperature, and other legacies of Carl Reinhold August Wunderlich". JAMA 268 (12): 1578 1580. And pressure changes with elevation and the weather

The only one of these three factors that MIGHT affect the breath result is body temperature. In fact, studies show an apparent 6.5% increase with every 1 degree Celsius body temperature increase. If there is evidence that the subject has a fever at the time of the test, we d recommend a blood test but the difference can also be explained in terms of the actual result the closer to 0.08g/210L the more significant this might be.

The human body reacts dramatically from deviations beyond ½ C 40 C (104 F) Fainting, dehydration, weakness, vomiting, headache and dizziness may occur as well as profuse sweating. 39 C (102.2 F) (Pyrexia) Severe sweating, flushed and very red. Fast heart rate and breathlessness. There may be exhaustion accompanying this. Children and epileptics may be very likely to get convulsions at this point. 38 C (100.4 F) Sweating, feeling very uncomfortable, slightly hungry. 37 C (98.6 F) Normal body temperature (which varies between about 36 37.5 C (96.8 99.5 F) 36 C (96.8 F) Mild to moderate shivering (this drops during sleep). May be a normal body temperature. 35 C (95.0 F) (Hypothermia is less than 35 C (95.0 F)) Intense shivering, numbness and bluish/grayness of the skin. There is the possibility of heart irritability.

The defendant s Partition Ratio/Henry s Law coefficient/blood to Breath Ratio is lower than 2100:1 therefore the BrAC is falsely high Studies show a range from 1500:1 to about 3100:1 is the actual ratio when comparing Blood to Breath OVER THE COURSE OF THE ENTIRE ALCOHOL ABSORPTION CURVE Studies also show that after peak that ratio is generally above 2400:1 which biases the test in favor of most of the subjects we encounter. The breath result more accurately shows the alcohol concentration in the brain.

The more you blow, the higher you go? Not really. The subject does have to blow a minimum of 1.1 liters in the hope that we get as close to alveolar air as possible. The number will rise (assuming there is ethanol present) until it plateaus This plateau is the most accurate sample we can expect Generally, the breath result will be lower or at best equal to a venous blood sample taken simultaneously.

The higher you go the higher you go? Actual testing has shown this to be false Tests were conducted from sea level to over 11000 feet above mean sea level (hundreds of data points) with no result varying beyond 5% or 0.005g/210L Similar study, same results in New Mexico Are we breaking or disproving Henry s Law of course not.

Expert incorrectly combines, by simple addition several misinterpreted and false error sources Typically combines 1% error for every 333 feet difference from sea level 7% for every degree Celsius increase for being nervous 10% allowable from the Administrative rules 12.5% derived from his interpretation of the instrument s lower level of detection X% per amount invoiced???

Error is inherent in all scientific measurements It can come from many sources The sources of error must be evaluated and properly combined to give an accurate approximation of the value of each measurement It is derived from calculations made using traceable standards and repeated analyses At FSD, we follow the industry standards for determining our uncertainty

Some random untested source of RFI caused the incorrect result (cellular phones, etc.) The internal components of the Intoxilyzer are shielded from RFI by a faraday cage. A detector on the outside of this cage is designed to avert unnecessary arguments concerning RFI The instruments have been tested with several sources of RFI it will not affect a breath test other than to shut the instrument down (RFI Inhibited Mode).

Douglas S. Lançon/ Ben N. Vetter Breath Alcohol/Toxicology Montana DOJ-FSD Laboratory 406-728-4970