Why Breathalyzers Don’t Measure Alcohol

Posted by Lawrence Taylor on November 20th, 2004

That’s right: Breathalyzers don’t actually measure alcohol. What they actually detect and measure is any chemical compund that contains the methyl group in its molecular structure. There are thousands of such compounds — including quite a few which can be found on the human breath. And this machine that determines a person’s guilt or innocence will "see" all of those chemicals as alcohol — and report a falsely high "blood-alcohol" concentration (BAC).

Most breath machines used in DUI cases by law enforcement today employ a technology called "infrared spectroscopy". The DUI suspect breathes through a tube connected to the machine and a breath sample is captured in a small "sample chamber" inside the machine. Then beams of infrared energy are shot through the captured breath sample. If there are any compounds containing the methyl group, they will absorb some of this energy; the more of the chemical compound in the breath sample, the more energy is absorbed. The more energy that is absorbed, the less infrared energy that reaches sensors at the other end of the sample chamber. And the less energy that is detected by the sensors, the higher the "blood-alcohol" reading.

Problem: the machine is designed to simply assume that the chemical compound absorbing the energy is alcohol. If a person has any of these other compounds on his breath, called "interferents" by the engineers, he will get a falsely high BAC test result. And if there are two or three such compounds on his breath, the machine will read a cumulative result: it will add them up and falsely report the total as the blood-alcohol level.

So what kinds of compounds may be on a person’s breath that can cause false BAC readings in a DUI case? In one study of eight men, 69 different compounds containing the methyl group were discovered. "Trace Composition of Human Respiratory Gas", 30 Archives of Environmental Health 290. In another study invoviing 28 subjects, researchers found that teh "combined expired air comprises at least 102 various organic compounds of endogenous and exogenous origin". "Characterization of Human Expired Air", 15 Journal of Chromatographic Sciences 240. And Camnadian scientists have discovered over 200 such compounds. "The Diagnostic Potential of Breath Analysis", 21(1) Clinical Chemistry 5.

What are these compounds? Are there any on my breath?

Well, for starters, diabetics with low blood sugar can have high levels of acetone — which is "seen" as alcohol by Breathalyzers. And scientific studies have found that people on diets can have reduced blood-sugar levels, causing acetone hundreds of times higher than found in normal individuals. Frank and Flores, "The Likelihood of Acetone Interference in Breath Alcohol Measurements", 3 Alcohol, Drugs and Driving 1. And there are many other so-called "interferents". See, for example, "Excretion of Low-Molecular Weight Volatile Substances in Human Breath: Focus on Endogenous Ethanol", 9 Journal of Analytical Toxicology 246.

If you are a smoker, your Breathalyzer result is likely to be higher than expected. The compound acetaldehyde — reported by the Breathalyzer as "alcohol" — is produced in the human body as a by-product in metabolizing consumed alcohol, and eventually passes into the lungs and breath. Researchers have discovered that levels of acetaldehyde in the lungs can be 30 times higher in smokers than in non-smokers. Result: higher BAC readings on the machine.

And then there are the industrial compounds: paint, glue, gasoline, thinners, and other compounds contain the methyl group. No, you don’t have to drink the stuff: simply absorbing it through your skin or inhaling the fumes can result in significant levels of the chemical in your body for hours or even days, depending upon the "half-life" of the compound. So if you’ve painted a room or siphoned some gasoline in the last day or two, don’t breath into a Breathalyzer.

Some law enforcement officials say that this is not a problem, claiming that levels of the compound would have to be at toxic levels to raise a breath test result to .08% or higher. These officials are displaying their ignorance of the science involved — specifically, of the partition ratio. This is the ratio of the compound found in the breath to that found in the blood. With ethanol, the ratio is 2100-to-1, which means that, on average, there will be 2100 units of alcohol in the blood for every unit found in the breath.

These officials are using this ratio for all compounds, but every compound has its own ratio. Toluene (found in paint, glue, thinners, cleaning solvents. etc.), for example, has a partition ratio of only 7-to-1; a far greater amount of toluene in the blood will pass into the breath, and so a much smaller amount in the body will have a far greater impact on the breath machine.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] So what has this got to do with breath tests? Well, one of the compounds you were actually smelling was acetone. As has been discussed in earlier posts (”Why Breathlyzers Don�t Measure Alcohol“), acetone is one of many chemical compounds which Breathalyzers will mistakenly report as alcohol. See the reasearch reported in such scientific articles as “The Likelihood of Acetone Interference in Breath Alcohol Measurements”, 3 Alcohol, Drugs and Driving 1, and “Excretion of Low-Molecular Weight Volatile Substances in Human Breath: Focus on Endogenous Ethanol”, 9 Journal of Analytical Toxicology 246. […]

    Pingback by DUI BLOG : Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution — December 6, 2006 @ 11:07 am

  2. […] Folks who have read my recent post, “Why Breathalyzers Don’t Measure Alcohol”, seem quite surprised to find out these DUI machines are not as reliable as MADD and law enforcement agencies would have us believe. In fact, the manufacturers of these things refuse to even warrant them to do what they’re supposed to: accurately measure blood-alcohol levels (see my earlier post, “Breathalyzers: Why Aren’t They Warranted to Measure Alcohol?”) […]

    Pingback by DUI BLOG : Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution — December 6, 2006 @ 11:11 am

  3. […] In my post “Why Breathalyzers Don�t Measure Alcohol“, I mentioned one of the many reliability problems breath machines have: they will falsely report any of thousands of chemical compounds as “alcohol”. Scientific studies have clearly proven this defect, referred to as “non-specificity”. In “Driving Under the Influence of…Gasoline?”, I gave a practical example of one such compound. Is gasoline the only chemical product that has been proven to falsely register as alcohol on these machines? […]

    Pingback by DUI BLOG : Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution — December 6, 2006 @ 11:11 am

  4. […] End result: since breathalyzers can�t tell the difference between alcohol and acetaldehyde (see earlier post, “Why Breathalyzers Don’t Measure Alcohol“), alcoholics will usually have higher blood-alcohol readings. Share: […]

    Pingback by DUI BLOG : Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution — December 6, 2006 @ 11:12 am

  5. […] As I mentioned in an earlier post, “Why Breathalyzers Don�t Measure Alcohol“, breath machines are actually designed to report the presence of any compound containing the methyl group in its molecular structure, not just alcohol. They cannot distinguish the difference between alcohol and, say, acetaldehyde. […]

    Pingback by DUI BLOG : Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution — December 6, 2006 @ 11:13 am

  6. […] See my earlier posts, such as “Breathalyzers — and Why They Don’t Work” and “Why Breathalyzers Don’t Measure Alcohol“. Share: […]

    Pingback by DUI BLOG : Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution — December 6, 2006 @ 11:57 am

  7. […] All states now have two drunk driving laws: (1) driving under the influence of alcohol (aka “DUI”, with local variations, such as “driving while intoxicated” or “DWI”), and (2) the so-called per se law of driving with .08% or higher blood-alcohol concentration (BAC). Most of those arrested will be charged and prosecuted for both offenses. The breath machines (commonly — and inaccurately — referred to as “Breathalyzers”) used to obtain the BAC are, obviously, critical to the drunk driving case. As for the per se offense, the only evidence of the crime is the machine: if the thing says .08% or higher and the jury believes it, the defendant is guilty. And even as to the DUI charge, the readings will be considered presumptive: if the BAC is .08% or higher, the jury will be instructed by the judge that the defendant is presumed guilty — and he must be found guilty unless he can prove his innocence (I’ve discussed this in “Whatever Happened to the Presumption of Innocence?“). These machines are all-important: they determine guilt or innocence. But their manufacturers continue to assure us that they are “state of the art”. So how accurate are they? Well, as I’ve written in the past, not very: Breathalyzers — and Why They Don’t Work Close Enough for Government Work The Mouth Alcohol Problem Breathalyzers: Why Aren’t They Warranted to Measure Alcohol? Driving Under the Influence of….Bread? Warning: Breathalyzer in Use Breath Fresheners and Breathalyzers Diabetes and the Counterfeit DUI Why Breathalyzers Don’t Measure Alcohol Can Body Temperature Affect Breathalyzer Results? The Effect of Anemia of Breath Tests GERD, Acid Reflux and False Breathalyzer Results Driving Under the Influence of….Gasoline? Do Breathalyzers Discriminate Against Women? Breathalyzer Inaccuracy: Testing During the Absorptive State Breathalyzer Inaccuracy: Post-Absorptive Breathalyzer Inaccuracy….It Gets Worse Warning: Smoking Can be Hazardous to Breathalyzer Results How to Fool the Breathalyzer Breathalyzer Manufacturers Won’t Tell How They Work […]

    Pingback by DUI BLOG : Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution — December 11, 2006 @ 2:59 pm

  8. […] Folks who have read my post “Why Breathalyzers Don�t Measure Alcohol” seem quite surprised to find out these DUI machines are not as reliable as MADD and law enforcement agencies would have us believe. In fact, the manufacturers of these things refuse to even warrant them to do what they�re supposed to: accurately measure blood-alcohol levels (see “Breathalyzers: Why Aren�t They Warranted to Measure Alcohol?”). So how reliable are these “breathalyzers” that determine a person�s guilt or innocence in DUI cases? And just what DO they measure if not alcohol? Well, thousands of different chemical compounds, according to scientists — anything that contains the methyl group in its molecular structure. Gasoline for one. Consider an article appearing on the front page of the Spokane Spokesman-Review (August 24, 1988), in which a person sitting in jail awaiting trial for DUI claimed that he had nothing to drink. He said he had run out of gas and had been siphoning gasoline from a container into his tank before being stopped by the officer and arrested. In siphoning, he had sucked on the hose to get it started and accidentally swallowed a small amount of the gasoline. He claimed that this must have caused the later high breathalyzer reading. The individual finally talked the sheriff into a demonstration to prove his story. Taken from his cell after one week of incarceration, he swallowed a cup of unleaded gasoline and then blew into the breath machine (an Intoximeter 3000). The results? After 5 minutes, the reading was .00%…..after 10 minutes, .04%……after 20 minutes, the Intoximeter registered .31%…..and after one hour, the reading was .28%. Even after three hours, the person still blew a .24% on the machine — three times the legal limit! (A quick call from the sheriff to a local gasoline distributor confirmed that gasoline contains no alcohol.) This was not a freak occurrence. The results have been scientifically verified in a study conducted by CMI, Inc., the manufacturer of a competing breath machine, the Intoxilyzer 5000, and reported in 8(3) Drinking/Driving Law Letter 6. CMI technicians mixed a simulator solution of 800 micrograms of gasoline with 500 milliliters of distilled water, then introduced it into their own machine. The solution produced readings of .619%, .631% and .635% — or about eight times the legal limit for “alcohol” levels. You don’t have to drink gasoline to get a reading on the breathalyzer. Breathing the fumes will do it. Like the next time you’re filling up at a gas pump. Share: […]

    Pingback by DUI BLOG : Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution — December 11, 2006 @ 3:17 pm

  9. […] Did you ever wonder how breathalyzers work? There is a website which will give you a pretty fair idea. But first, let’s clear up some confusion…. There are many different kinds of “breathalyzers” — or, more accurately, there are many kinds of breath testing devices. The first of the modern breath testers, manufactured by Smith and Wesson many years ago (yes, that Smith and Wesson), was called the Breathalyzer. Since then, various manufacturers have recognized the growing market and come out with their own models, bearing such names as Intoxilyzer, Intoximeter, DataMaster, AlcoSensor, Alcotest and so on; most of these products have been produced in different model versions, such as the Intoxilyer 4011, 5000 and 8000. To deal with the confusion, the term “breathalyzer” came to be used as a generic term for any breath testing instrument. (To confuse things further, a German company — Draeger — bought the rights to the Breathalyzer brand and have sometimes used that name in some of their models.) Most of these are evidentiary machines — that is, larger machines generally kept at the station whose test results are used in evidence. Others are smaller, handheld units carried by officers in the field; these are less accurate, and are usually used as a field sobriety test to help determine whether to arrest a suspect. The original Breathalyzer operated using a wet chemical method of analysis, employing a disposable glass ampoule of chemicals. Although still occasionally found in law enforcement, this relatively primitive technology was replaced in later machines by infrared spectroscopy, gas chromatography or, mainly in handheld units, fuel cell analysis; a couple of the more recent machines use a combination of infrared and fuel cell. Now that this has been cleared up, you might want to visit the following sites to understand the actual workings of these gizmos: Chemical (the Breathalyzer) Infrared spectroscopy (the Intoxilyzer) Fuel cell (the Alcosensor) Note: Gas chromatography is rarely encountered anymore, as it was primarily used in the discontinued Intoximeter 3000. Note #2: To further understand why these machines aren’t nearly as accurate as law enforcement would have you believe, visit a few of my previous posts: Breathalyzers — and Why They Don’t Work Breathalyzer Inaccuracy: Testing During the Absorptive Stage Breathalyzer Inaccuracy: Post-Absorptive Breathalyzer Inaccuracy….It Gets Worse “Close Enough for Government Work” Why Breathalyzers Don’t Measure Alcohol How to Fool the Breathalyzer Breathalyzers and Radio Frequency Interference Breathalyzers: Why Aren’t They Warranted to Measure Alcohol? Share: […]

    Pingback by DUI BLOG : Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution — December 11, 2006 @ 3:25 pm

  10. […] I have commented repeatedly in the past about the inaccuracy and unreliability of breath-testing devices used in DUI investigations. This is due to a wide range of factors:  inherent design defects (see, for example, my previous post “Why Breathalyzers Don’t Measure Alcohol“); ineffective calibration and maintenance of the machines; improper administration of the test; radio frequncy interference; and, most importantly, physiological variability in humans. […]

    Pingback by DUI BLOG : Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution — December 21, 2006 @ 12:54 pm

  11. […] I have commented repeatedly in the past about the inaccuracy and unreliability of breath-testing devices used in DUI investigations. This is due to a wide range of factors: inherent design defects (see, for example, my previous post “Why Breathalyzers Don’t Measure Alcohol“); ineffective calibration and maintenance of the machines; improper administration of the test; radio frequncy interference; and, most importantly, physiological variability in humans. […]

    Pingback by DUI BLOG : Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution — December 28, 2006 @ 11:05 am

  12. […] End result: since breathalyzers can’t tell the difference between alcohol and acetaldehyde (see earlier post, “Why Breathalyzers Don’t Measure Alcohol“), alcoholics will usually have falsely higher blood-alcohol readings. Share: […]

    Pingback by DUI BLOG : Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution — January 18, 2007 @ 6:53 am

  13. […] Getting convictions in the ongoing “War on Drunk Driving” depends upon the public’s faith in blood-alcohol evidence — particularly in the so-called “breathalyzers”. And over the 35 years or so that I’ve prosecuted and then defended, prosecutors have always represented them to juries as deadly accurate and fail-safe — no matter what make or model the breath machine. State of the art. Yet, I’ve noticed an interesting phenomenon….. The manufacturers keep changing them. A whole lot of years ago, when I was dealing with the grandaddy of the “modern” breath machines, the Breathalyzer 900, these devices were presented to juries as ushering in a new age of highly accurate breath-alcohol analysis. And which scientific laboratory developed and manufactured these scientific wonders? Smith and Wesson. Yes, the manufacturer of that marvel of science, the six-shooter. And, of course, there were endless problems with these machines, so Smith and Wesson modified it and offered the model 900A. Which continued to have problems, so S&W developed the Breathalyzer 900B — followed by the new, improved, “state of the art” and now truly foolproof Breathalyzer 1000. Which turned out to be less reliable than the 900. Of course, this led to the model 1100, followed by the absolutely-no-fooling-state-of-the-art Breathalyzer 2000. Which eventually led to Smith and Wesson finally throwing up their hands and selling out to a German company, Draeger. (Incidentally, the old Breathalyzer 900s are still being used by some police departments today.) Meanwhile, other corporations had smelled the government money. A new player, Omicron Systems, came out with a machine to compete with the Breathalyzer: the Intoxilyzer. Omicron then sold out to CMI, Inc., which produced the Intoxilyzer 4011 — offered as a vast improvement over the Breathalyzers. This model, like the Breathalyzer, was followed by a series of modifications and improvements (models 4011A, 4011AR, 4011AS, et al.) and, of course, finally by ditching the machine for their new, ultimate machine: the Intoxilyzer 5000. Truly state of the art. Except it wasn’t. So back to the drawing board — and the latest model, the Intoxilyzer 8000. Which, jurors are again assured, is completely reliable and deadly accurate — until the next improved version. Meanwhile, other competitors decided that the sad state of breath testing devices presented opportunities. Intoximeters, Inc., produced the Intoximeter 3000. Which did not fare well. This time Intoximeters, Inc., gave up relying on the underlying technology, infrared spectroscopy, and tried to integrate a simpler method involving electrochemical analysis. Result: the Intoximeter EC/IR. State of the art….until the next improved model is offered. Others smelled the blood in the water. Verax Systems produced the BAC Datamaster, then quickly gave up and sold out to another manufacturer, National Patent. And the German heirs to Smith and Wesson, Draeger, began marketing their Alcotest 7110. And so on…. Each of these devices, its manufacturer assured law enforcement agencies, was a great improvement over earlier models and competitors’ machines. And in each and every case, regardless of the breath gizmo being used, the prosecution would assure jurors that it was reliable, accurate and, in fact, “state of the art”: they could convict with a clear conscience. And when defense attorneys would point out the defects and problems, jurors would be assured that this was just “smoke and mirrors” from sleazy lawyers. The defense would point out, for example, that the machine falsely reports a wide range of chemical compounds as alcohol. Acetone in the breath, for example, caused high readings. And prosecutors assured jurors that this was another defense lie. Until the manufacturers developed and began marketing acetone detectors. Then there were the studies indicating that radio frequency interference (RFI) was widely causing unpredictable fluctuations in test results. More smoke and mirrors from the defense, jurors were told. But soon manufacturers were marketing RFI detectors. And the mouth alcohol problem — another baseless attack on the prosecution’s state of the art evidence, followed by another device developed by the machines’ makers: the mouth alcohol detector. And so on ad nauseum…. So what is the latest trend? Apparently, after all of those public reassurances, law enforcement is starting to give up on the machines. As I’ve indicated in recent posts, police are now beginning to turn to direct blood analysis: cops jamming hypodermic needles into suspects on the highway. State of the art. Share: […]

    Pingback by DUI BLOG : Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution — January 19, 2007 @ 4:10 pm

  14. […] Why Breathalyzers Don't Measure Alcohol […]

    Pingback by DUI BLOG : Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution — March 7, 2007 @ 10:49 am

  15. […] Why Breathalyzers Don’t Measure Alcohol […]

    Pingback by DUI BLOG : Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution — August 26, 2008 @ 7:32 am


Comments

  1. he fact that MethylEthylKetone can be absorbed through the skin is the reason that it cant be used as a solvent in a submersive tank without heavy rubber gloves is because ithe cemical not only causes cancer, but is absorbs rapidly through the skin. Its a shame too, it was the greatest degreaser.

    Comment by Kaneda76 — March 18, 2008 @ 7:14 pm

  2. Can you tell me why the Breathalyzer/Intoxilyzer would be inaccurate if the readings obtained on the instruments can be corroborated by Blood Analysis in a Forensic Toxicology Lab?

    Comment by vinny6737 — March 23, 2008 @ 5:08 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.