Correlation between blood alcohol concentration (BAC), breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) and psychomotor evaluation in a clinical monitored study of alcohol intake in Brazil

Alcohol ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 66 ◽  
pp. 15-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Paula Drummond-Lage ◽  
Rodrigo Gomes de Freitas ◽  
Gabriel Cruz ◽  
Luigi Perillo ◽  
Marco Antonio Paiva ◽  
...  
1987 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 753-756 ◽  
Author(s):  
G Simpson

Abstract Published data are analyzed in order to estimate the accuracy of breath-alcohol measurements for subjects during absorption of orally ingested ethanol. Simultaneous measurements of breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) and venous blood alcohol concentration (VBAC) show that actual VBAC can be overestimated by more than 100% for a significant amount of time after drinking stops. The maximum error found for four individual subjects is +230%, +190%, +60%, and +30%. The magnitude of these errors indicates that results from quantitative evidential breath alcohol analyzers are far less accurate for the absorptive state than they are during the postabsorptive state, but the specifications for accuracy and precision given by manufacturers of these instruments do not reflect this. The results also indicate that there is a significant likelihood that subjects will be in the absorptive state when tested under field conditions. I conclude that estimates of BAC based on BrAC measurements are not reliable in the absorptive state and that the uncertainty associated with such estimates should be accounted for, particularly when the results are used in connection with law enforcement.


Author(s):  
Lindsey Skaggs ◽  
Amy Heizler ◽  
Diane Kalscheur ◽  
Amy Miles ◽  
Heather M Barkholtz

Abstract In this work, 114 volunteers were dosed with 80-proof liquor to produce peak blood- or breath- alcohol concentration of 0.040 to 0.080 g/100mL blood or g/210L breath. This was followed by a 30-minute deprivation period before simultaneous blood and breath samples were collected and the alcohol concentration quantified. Blood alcohol concentration was determined by gas chromatography with flame ionization detection and breath alcohol concentration by a dual-sensor Intox EC/IR II instrument. Paired Student t-tests showed that differences between paired blood and breath alcohol results differed significantly. Results from these two measurement methods are highly correlated and, on average, measured blood alcohol concentration was 11.3% greater than breath alcohol concentration. There were ten instances of breath alcohol concentration being greater than the corresponding blood alcohol concentration, and the average difference between these two values was 0.0059 g/100mL. Agreement plots of coupled blood and breath alcohol concentration revealed a mean bias of 0.00754 g/100mL and 95% limits of agreement at -0.00705 and 0.0221 g/100mL. Once breath alcohol concentration values were truncated to the hundredths place as required by Wisconsin state statute, only three participants had greater breath alcohol concentration than corresponding blood alcohol concentration, with an average difference between these values of 0.008 g/100mL. Agreement plots with truncated breath alcohol concentration values gave a mean bias of 0.0120 g/100mL and 95% limits of agreement at -0.00344 and 0.0275 g/100mL. Data showed that typically, blood samples had greater alcohol concentrations than corresponding breath values. Differences were exacerbated by Wisconsin’s statutory requirement that reported breath alcohol measurements be truncated to the hundredths place whereas blood has no corresponding mandate.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joris C. Verster ◽  
L. Darren Kruisselbrink ◽  
Karin A. Slot ◽  
Aikaterini Anogeianaki ◽  
Sally Adams ◽  
...  

The 2010 Alcohol Hangover Research Group consensus paper defined a cutoff blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.11% as a toxicological threshold indicating that sufficient alcohol had been consumed to develop a hangover. The cutoff was based on previous research and applied mostly in studies comprising student samples. Previously, we showed that sensitivity to hangovers depends on (estimated) BAC during acute intoxication, with a greater percentage of drinkers reporting hangovers at higher BAC levels. However, a substantial number of participants also reported hangovers at comparatively lower BAC levels. This calls the suitability of the 0.11% threshold into question. Recent research has shown that subjective intoxication, i.e., the level of severity of reported drunkenness, and not BAC, is the most important determinant of hangover severity. Non-student samples often have a much lower alcohol intake compared to student samples, and overall BACs often remain below 0.11%. Despite these lower BACs, many non-student participants report having a hangover, especially when their subjective intoxication levels are high. This may be the case when alcohol consumption on the drinking occasion that results in a hangover significantly exceeds their “normal” drinking level, irrespective of whether they meet the 0.11% threshold in any of these conditions. Whereas consumers may have relative tolerance to the adverse effects at their “regular” drinking level, considerably higher alcohol intake—irrespective of the absolute amount—may consequentially result in a next-day hangover. Taken together, these findings suggest that the 0.11% threshold value as a criterion for having a hangover should be abandoned.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document