The Elimination Rates of Alcohol from Breath

Figure 1: A breath alcohol testing performed by a police officer. (17 March 2020), Access Date: 12.05.2023

Alcohol consumption is removed from the body by way of breathed air, as has been proven as early as the 19th century [1]. Since breath is a sample that is easier to obtain than blood, the determination of the alcohol concentration in breath has been studied since 1927 [2]. Different BrAC analysis techniques were developed and tested in the following [3,4], with a focus on their use concerning traffic offenses. Here, a trustworthy measurement and the removal of potential sources of fabrication are required [5–12]. Different nations have created the ”evidential” BrAC measurement for medicolegal purposes through legal means as more accurate BrAC measurement instruments have been produced [13–15]. Despite calls for uniformity, laws governing alcohol readings in road transportation remain inconsistent [16].

The road traffic legislation (StVO) [17] and the driving license act (FSG) [18] govern BrAC analysis for traffic offenses in Austria, setting a legal limit of 0.5 g/L (”per mille”) BAC or (coequally) 0.25 mg/L BrAC for transportation, which is comparable to several European nations. In real life, it’s common for some time to pass between a driving infraction and the subsequent alcohol concentration assessment. In these situations, a back calculation is required to determine the actual alcohol level of the test subject at the precise moment of the offense. If blood alcohol levels are measured, a back calculation can be done as long as variations in the individual blood alcohol clearance rates are taken into account and are supported by scientific research. These computations produce upper and lower BAC limits that are broadly accepted for legal purposes and ensure that the accused receives the appropriate benefit [19].

A straightforward back calculation on the foundation of BrAC is currently not permitted from a scientific standpoint if just BrAC measurement findings are known, as is frequently the case in daily routine, because there aren’t enough studies on BrAC elimination rates per hour. In a few investigations, the rates of BrAC elimination were recorded; however, either the BrAC values were somehow converted into ”BAC” values, given in g/L [20-22] or mg/dL [23], or the elimination of exact amounts of alcohol was stated as gram per hour [24].

No one of these studies may therefore contribute to the BrAC eradication rates that are recognized by law and science. A recent study that complied with German legal criteria assessed BrAC elimination rates while adhering to precise guidelines and utilizing the German evidentiary measurement instrument [25]. Hourly BrAC elimination rates achieved in communal drinking events under realistic circumstances were examined overall and individually for men and women in the current study. The infrared optical measurement system-based evidentiary analysis tool Alcotest 7110 MK III A was employed for the BrAC measurements. The results can help define BrAC elimination rates for back calculations that are acceptable to science and that adhere to appropriate statistical scopes [19].

A total of 59 participants—32 men and 27 women—with ages ranging from 20 to 40 and a mean of 29.1 +/- 5.2 years had body measurements between 157 and 200 cm (175.7 +/- 9.8 cm) and 45 and 100 kg (67.8 +/- 13.1 kg) resulting in body mass indices that were calculated to be between 17.6 and 28.7 (21.8 +/- 2.6). All participants have experienced drinkers, and all except a single female consumed alcohol more than once a week, according to an assessment of their drinking habits. Self-estimated alcohol use per week ranged from 20 to 400 g of ethanol, or an average of 196 g (+/- 104 g). Males drink more alcohol regularly (268 +/- 76 g) than females did (109 +/- 52 g) [19].

The Alcotest 7110 MK III A gadget was used to measure BrAC and two separate breath samples are required for a valid result, and the interval between the samples must be less than three minutes. To avoid water condensation, the equipment is warmed. Both an electrochemical system and an IR optical measurement system are used. The electrochemical system is utilized for an internal comparison of the two measures as well as to manage the environmental air for alcoholic gases and other unsettling compounds. The infrared optical system, which is regarded as the most dependable and accurate measuring technology, was used to get both of the measurements’ shown findings [19].

As soon as possible, blood samples were centrifuged and kept at 48°C. Blood was drawn within two days, and blood alcohol content (BAC) was measured according to Austrian forensic standards. The average value was derived as a result after the measurements’ results, which were not permitted to fluctuate by more than 5%, were received. By dividing the results of measuring serum alcohol levels by 1.18, BAC values were calculated [26]. As “per mille” is officially defined with g/L, BAC is expressed as grams of alcohol per liter of blood.

MS Excel 2002 was used to create all descriptive statistical parameters, including mean values, medians, standard deviations of the mean, and 95% confidence intervals for the derived parameters. SQS 98 was used to assess the standard deviation of the results performed a double-sided Student’s t-test. In the equation y = kx + d, the regression lines of the BrAC and BAC values have been determined and provided. The hourly variation within BrAC and BAC elimination were used to compute the slope of the BrAC and BAC regressions, which is supplied by the parameter k [19].

According to the formula mv 2.004 S.D. m 2.004 S.D. + mv, where mv is the calculated mean value, S.D. is the standard deviation of the mean, and m is the expected mean value,

the ranges of the determined hourly elimination rates were calculated, with a statistical range of 95%. The coefficients 2.042 (for n = 30, 95% limitations) and 2.056 (for n = 26, 95% limitations) were used, respectively, in the calculations for men and women. Following all of these worries, a complete set of outcome data was gathered and synchronized for additional thorough examinations [19].

Figure 2: BrAC (mg/L h+/-1) and BAC (g/L h+/-1) hourly elimination rates for men and women were estimated using the volunteer’s independently computed linear regression parameters [19].

Figure 3 displays the findings of calculations made individually for men and women. It was shown that the greater elimination rate of females was statistically significant (p 0.04). Accordingly, BAC removal rates were computed and are shown in Figure 2. Additionally, within BAC, the disparity in rates between men and women was shown to be statistically significant [19].
Figure 4: BrAC (mg/L h+/-1) and BAC (g/L h+/-1) hourly elimination rates for men and women were estimated using the volunteer’s independently computed linear regression parameters [19].

By dividing BAC (g/L) by BrAC (mg/L), the blood-to-breath alcohol factor of conversion Q was calculated. To acquire accurate findings, only BrAC values of 0.1 mg/L were taken into account. With the BAC and BrAC values of each volunteer at each measurement point in time, this dimensionless factor was calculated. Table 3 also includes the observed Q values for the minimum and maximum. Overall, 2470 (+/- 250) may be used to compute the mean Q [19].

Figure 5
: The average BAC/BrAC conversion factors Q, derived from all volunteers at each point of measurement in time, and the least and maximal factors Q actually observed at each measurement point [19].

The creation of ”evidential” BrAC analysis tools in numerous nations was sparked by the development of BrAC measurement instruments demonstrating a suitable exactness and precision of the measurement approach.

Additionally, the European road traffic law requires the performance of BrAC measures and only permits the extraction of blood in a very limited number of circumstances. In most situations, only breath levels of alcohol are therefore available. Since there are currently no scientifically documented BrAC elimination rates per time unit, a conversion of the BrAC value into a comparable BAC value is necessary if a back calculation of the level of alcohol during the time of the offense is needed. Due to the fact that, as is well known, the BAC/ BrAC conversion factor alone can lead to significant variances that must be taken into account in forensic expert judgments [27–29], this causes a significant variance of results even at the conversion stage. Calculating and assessing hourly BrAC elimination rates for backward calculations is one way to address this issue. It appears important to assess BrAC data that were produced by one particular sort of instrument and to adhere to the relevant legal settings since different BrAC measurement techniques are employed in various countries and because of varied legally defined standards for forensic application [19].

Among the 504 measured values used in the computations for the current investigation, 476 BrAC data from the tested individuals’ separate alcohol elimination stages were taken into account. A mean hourly BrAC elimination rate of 0.082 mg/L h 1 was determined using linear regression parameters, which were calculated from 5 to 10 measurement data per individual. Concerning the mean BrAC value computed from the two BrAC measurement findings, this conclusion was reached. The rate was roughly the same if adjusted to three decimal places, or 0.082 mg/L, if the ”relevant” BrAC value, or the lower of the two measured values, was taken by Austrian regulatory standards. This indicates that whether the mean or the lowest of the measured BrAC levels were chosen did not significantly affect the computed elimination rates. Therefore, it is possible to ignore this Austrian legal quirk while performing the calculations [19].

The measured initial breath alcohol concentrations ranged from 0.245 to 0.73 mg/L, representing a broad spectrum of legally significant alcohol concentrations. The experimental conditions closely resembled real-world social circumstances; test subjects were free to decide on the type and quantity of alcohol they drank, as well as the intervals at which they drank mineral water. They were also not required to finish the alcohol quickly. In addition, it is imperative to take into account not only the mean elimination rate but also the upper and lower boundaries, which were determined using the 95% confidence intervals of 0.050 mg/L/h and 0.114 mg/L/h. [19].

The results that were separately obtained for men and women suggest that applying various gender-dependent elimination rates is worthwhile. The statistically significant difference between the slightly higher clearance rates in females (0.087 mg/L h+/-1 against 0.078 mg/L h+/-1) was already mentioned in earlier research [30,31]. However, these results need to be carefully considered because the computed variances within both groups overlap.

Since other research did not find any pertinent gender differences, a more thorough evaluation seems essential [32,33].

The obtained mean BrAC elimination rate corresponds well with the mean rate determined in a previous German study [24]. However, it doesn’t seem like enough for real-world applications to simply take out one standard deviation and round the result down. For instance, the accused can assert that the crime was done while they were completely drunk, hence it is necessary to calculate an upper limit to protect all of their legal rights [19].

Their findings support the fact that these percentages can be directly and broadly utilized in typical forensic instances when taking the specified 95% limits into account. However, it is necessary to follow the fundamental guidelines that the forensic science community has established for alcohol back calculations in blood. Only if the subject was definitely in the post-absorptive stage during the time of the incident—which is not always possible—can reliable back calculations be performed [34].

The average hourly BAC elimination rates from 445 readings were 0.169 g/L h+/-1, supporting the commonly accepted range of 0.1 to 0.2 g/L. Given that the upper limit was determined using 0.235 g/L h+/-1 and even 0.254 g/L in women, perhaps these higher limits should be taken into account as appropriate. The use of gender-dependent rates is suggested since mean BAC elimination rates were statistically substantially higher in women (0.179 g/ L h+/-1 versus 0.162 g/L h+/-1) [19].

For all of the study’s volunteers, the average BAC/BrAC factor of conversion Q was determined using 2470. This outcome is obviously better than the factor 2000, which is legally required, for instance, in Austria and Germany. It is also better than what was discovered in other research conducted in similar circumstances [35, 36]. It is seen that Q rises during the course of the measurement period, that is, as the participants’ blood alcohol levels decline. Haffner et al. [29] mathematically described and later demonstrated Q’s dependence on alcohol concentration [37].

Indeed, the bulk of traffic offenses in Austria only has BrAC values available. Back computations inside BrAC are yet to be proven scientifically. The current study aids in the creation of trustworthy rates. It must be highlighted, nonetheless, that a BrAC level is insufficient for determining a person’s level of impairment. This is especially true if there have been accidents or crimes, namely, touching on criminal laws, or if there has been alcohol use after or just before an alleged offense. Their findings support the viability of applying dependable hourly BrAC removal rates while scientifically observing 95% ranges, aside from certain specific constellations. Therefore, assuming basic forensic science standards that have been established for alcohol back calculations are obeyed, the use of BrAC elimination rates can be considered valid if regulations are established coequally by blood and by breath alcohol concentrations. [17-19]

References:

  1. A.W. Jones, Measuring alcohol in blood and breath for forensic purposes—a historical review, Forensic Sci. Rev. 12 (2000) 151–181.
  2.  E. Bogen, Drunkenness—a quantitative study of acute alcoholic intoxication, JAMA 89 (1927) 1508–1511.
  3.  M.P. Hlastala, The alcohol breath test—a review, J. Appl. Physiol 84 (1998) 401–408.
  4. V.J. Emerson, R. Holleyhead, M.D. Isaacs, N.A. Fuller, D.J. Hunt, The measurement of breath alcohol. The laboratory evaluation of substantive breath test equipment and the report of an operational police trial, J. Forensic Sci. Soc. 20 (1980) 3–70.
  5. N.H. Spector, Alcohol breath tests: gross errors in current methods of measuring alveolar gas concentrations, Science 172 (1971) 57–59.
  6. Precision, accuracy and relevance of breath alcohol measurements, Mod. Probl. Pharmacopsychiatr 11 (1976) 68–78.
  7. A.W. Jones, Concerning accuracy and precision of breath-alcohol measurements, Clin. Chem. 33 (1987) 1701–1706.
  8. W. Frankvoort, J.A. Mulder, W. Neuteboom, The laboratory testing of evidential breath-testing (EBT) machines, Forensic Sci. Int. 35 (1987) 27– 43.
  9.  A. Berzlanovich, M. Muhm, G. Bauer, The value of breath alcohol determination in street traffic, Beitr. Gerichtl. Med. 50 (1992) 229–234.
  10. G. Simpson, Accuracy and precision of breath-alcohol measurements for a random subject in the post-absorptive state, Clin. Chem. 33 (1987) 261– 268.
  11. T.J. Buckley, J.D. Pleil, J.R. Bowyer, J.M. Davis, Evaluation of methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) as an interference on commercial breath-alcohol analyzers, Forensic Sci. Int. 123 (2001) 111–118.
  12. R.G. Gullberg, Breath alcohol measurement variability associated with different instrumentation and protocols, Forensic Sci. Int. 131 (2003) 30– 35.
  13.  K. Fleck, G. Schoknecht, Use of breath alcohol analysis in France, Blutalkohol 26 (1989) 376–380.
  14.  J.A. Mulder, W. Neuteboom, R.M. Wessel, Breath alcohol legislation in The Netherlands, Blutalkohol 28 (1991) 94–107.
  15. J. Lagois, Dra¨ger alcotest evidential 7110—the measuring device for forensic breath alcohol analysis in Germany, Blutalkohol 37 (2000) 77– 91.
  16.  S.D. Ferrara, S. Zancaner, R. Giorgetti, Low blood alcohol concentrations and driving impairment. A review of experimental studies and international legislation, Int. J. Legal Med. 106 (1994) 169–177.
  17.  Straßenverkehrsordnung 1960, BGBl. Nr. 159/1960, BGBl. I Nr. 128/ 2002.
  18.  Fu¨hrerscheingesetz, BGBl. Nr. 120/1997, BGBl. I Nr. 81/2002.
  19.  Pavlic, M., Grubwieser, P., Libiseller, K., & Rabl, W. (2007). Elimination rates of breath alcohol. Forensic science international171(1), 16–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.09.008
  20. M.S. Mumenthaler, J.L. Taylor, J.A. Yesavage, Ethanol pharmacokinetics in white women: nonlinear model fitting versus zero-order elimination analyses, Alcohol Clin. Exp. Res. 24 (2000) 1353–1362.
  21.  R.L. Watkins, E.V. Adler, The effect of food on alcohol absorption and elimination patterns, J. Forensic Sci. 38 (1993) 285–291.
  22.  H. Olsen, J. Sakshaug, F. Duckert, J.H. Stromme, J. Morland, Ethanol elimination-rates determined by breath analysis as a marker of recent excessive ethanol consumption, Scand. J. Clin. Lab. Invest. 49 (1989) 359–365.
  23. D.F. Brennan, S. Betzelos, R. Reed, J.L. Falk, Ethanol elimination rates in an ED population, Am. J. Emerg. Med. 13 (1995) 276–280.
  24. Y.D. Neumark, Y. Friedlander, R. Durst, E. Leitersdorf, D. Jaffe, V.A. Ramchandani, S. O’Connor, L.G. Carr, T.K. Li, Alcohol dehydrogenase polymorphisms influence alcohol-elimination rates in a male Jewish population, Alcohol Clin. Exp. Res. 28 (2004) 10–14.
  25.  K. Jachau, S. Sauer, D. Krause, H. Wittig, Comparative regression analysis of concurrent elimination-phase blood and breath alcohol concentration measurements to determine hourly degradation rates, Forensic Sci. Int. 143 (2004) 115–120
  26.  W. Kisser, W. Vycudilik, E.P. Leinzinger, H.J. Battista, Th. Keller, R. Binder, G. Henning, A. Haidekker, Richtlinien der O¨sterr. Gesellschaft fu¨r Gerichtliche Medizin fu¨r die Durchfu¨hrung der Blutalkoholuntersuchung, O¨sterreichische Richterzeitung (2001) 182–183.
  27.  Wissenschaftliche Tabellen Geigy, Teilband Ha¨matologie und Humangenetik, eighth ed., Verlag Ciba Geigy AG, Basel, 1979, p. 68.
  28.  A.W. Jones, L. Andersson, Comparison of ethanol concentrations in venous blood and end-expired breath during a controlled drinking study, Forensic Sci. Int. 132 (2003) 18–25.
  29.  H.T. Haffner, M. Graw, A. Dettling, G. Schmitt, A. Schuff, Concentration dependency of the BAC/BrAC (blood alcohol concentration/breath alcohol concentration) conversion factor during the linear elimination phase, Int. J. Legal Med. 117 (2003) 276–281.
  30.  G. Simpson, Uncertain validity of the 2100 conversion, J. Anal. Toxicol. 12 (1988) 356.
  31. T.K. Li, J.D. Beard, W.E. Orr, P.Y. Kwo, V.A. Ramchandani, H.R. Thomasson, Variation in ethanol pharmacokinetics and perceived gender and ethnic differences in alcohol elimination, Alcohol Clin. Exp. Res. 24 (2000) 415–416.
  32.  H. Thomasson, Alcohol elimination: faster in women? Alcohol Clin. Exp. Res. 24 (2000) 419–420.
  33.  A. Dettling, A. Schuff, G. Skopp, M. Graw, H.T. Haffner, Gender differences on ethanol pharmacokinetics, Rechtsmedizin 4 (2005) 320.
  34.  A. Dettling, F. Fischer, S. Bo¨hler, F. Ullrichs, G. Skopp, L. von Meyer, H.T. Haffner, M. Graw, AAK- und BAK-Eliminationsraten bei Frauen— Anpassung an die forensischen Ru¨ckrechnungswerte, Rechtsmedizin 4 (2005) 336.
  35. P. Grubwieser, A. Haidekker, M. Pavlic, M. Steinlechner, Blood alcoholbreath alcohol concentration quotient in the range of 0.5 per mille blood alcohol concentration (0.25 mg/l breath alcohol). Experiences with the calibrated breath alcohol analyser Alcotest MK III A (Austrian version), Rechtsmedizin 12 (2002) 104–108.
  36.  K. Jachau, U. Schmidt, H. Wittig, W. Romhild, D. Krause, Conversion of breath alcohol concentration and blood alcohol concentration. Experimental investigations employing the calibrated alcotest 7110 evidential MK III breath analyser, Rechtsmedizin 10 (2000) 96–101.
  37. M.  Pavlic, P. Grubwieser, A. Brandstatter, K. Libiseller, W. Rabl, A study concerning the blood/breath alcohol conversion factor Q: concentration dependency and its applicability in daily routine, Forensic Sci. Int. 158 (2006) 149–156

Figure References:

  1. https://www.drive.com.au/news/police-suspend-mass-random-breath-testing-in-some-states-amid-coronavirus-outbreak/

 Inspector:Ayşenur DURU

Yorum bırakın

E-posta adresiniz yayınlanmayacak. Gerekli alanlar * ile işaretlenmişlerdir