Intoxilyzer Model 5000 Research Project - 1996

Phillip B. Price, Sr., Esquire

This article is written in an attempt to document my research and findings relating to experimentation with breath testing utilizing a 64-series Intoxilyzer Model 5000. This portion of the overall project is the first one of a series of testing and experimentation to be carried out during 1996. Phase One of the testing consisted of two parts. Part one of Phase One consisted of consuming a moderate amount of alcoholic beverage and then, after establishing a baseline breath alcohol test value, ingesting various substances into the oral cavity in an attempt to determine what substances, if any, might add alcohol to a breath reading or provide an alcohol reading by some other component measured by the Intoxilyzer 5000. The alcoholic beverage consumed for this testing session was a moderate amount of California wine. Nothing was ingested within 25 minutes of testing. Each of the substances which were placed into the mouth were still in the mouth at the time the sample was introduced to the 5000.

Following a 25 minute delay after the consumption of the wine, duplicate readings of 0.053 were obtained on the test subject employing the Intoxilyzer 5000. There were five minutes between each breath sample. Subsequently, each substance listed below was ingested into the oral cavity, resulting in the following observations.

1. Subject Test 0.053

2. Subject Test 0.053

3. M & Ms 0.052

4. Doritos 0.066

5. Doritos 0.068

6. M & Ms 0.047

7. Lemon juice 0.048

8. Bread 0.078

9. Bread 0.097

10. Water 0.034

11. Subject Test 0.047

12. Bread 0.084

While the Doritos chips seemed to cause an increase in the reading, water being held in the oral cavity seemed to reduce the reading. M & Ms and lemon juice had no effect on the original subject test results. White sliced sandwich bread, however, produced an elevated reading. Once the 0.078 and 0.097 readings were obtained from the bread, the oral cavity was rinsed with water and a baseline reading was obtained which revealed 0.047. Bread was reintroduced to the oral cavity and a reading of .084 resulted. The bread used in this portion of the testing was Marita Old Fashioned sandwich bread. The testing consisted of taking a small bite of bread, chewing it and blowing into the device. The ingredients as listed on the side of the package read:

Enriched wheat flour [flour, barley malt, ferrus sulfate (iron), niacin (a AB@ vitamin), thiamine mononitrate (BI), riboflavin (B2)], water, corn syrup, yeast. Contains 2% or less of each of the following: Soybean oil, salt, soy flour, wheat gluten, emulsifiers (may contain one or more of the following: Mono and diglycerides, ethoxylated mono and diglycerides, lecithin), dough conditioners (may contain one or more of the following: Sodium stearoyl lactylate, calcium dioxide, calcium iodate, ammonium sulfate), corn flour, wheat starch, calcium sulfate, cornstarch, calcium carbonate, calcium propionate (to retain freshness).

Due to the initial results of the effect of that particular brand of bread on the Intoxilyzer results, another follow-up study on bread was performed. Breads of various types were purchased, and most of the testing done on the day of purchase. An ETOH baseline of zero was used during this part of the experiment. That is to say, the testing was on an alcohol-free subject and duplicate subject test readings of .000 were obtained. The following is a list of breads tests, and the respective tests values. Between each bread test a reading of .000 was obtained to insure that there was no accumulated test value. During this phase of testing, no alcohol was consumed prior to testing.

BREAD READING

1. Colonial Hot Dog Bun 0.049

2. Prestige Oven Whole Grain 0.050

3. Cooper's Mill - Enriched San Francisco Style Sourdough Bread 0.027

4. Arnold Potato Rolls 0.073

5. Nature's Own 100% Whole Wheat Bread 0.042

6. White Sliced Bread

A. Colonial Iron Kids Sandwich Bread 0.071 (Official Sponsor of the 1996 U.S. Olympic Team)

B. Sunbeam Bread 0.041

C. Colonial Bread 0.053

D. Nature's Own Butter Bread 0.048

E. Sunbeam Old Fashioned Bread 0.050

F. Flowers Old Fashioned Bread 0.050

In conclusion, my observations are twofold. First, without question, bread causes a positive reading on the Intoxilyzer Model 5000 device. Second, in view of the fact that only three Invalid Sample readings were obtained throughout the testing, the slope detector function proved to be unreliable in the detection of residuals in the oral cavity. It is noteworthy to mention that all of the breads tested had similar ingredients and none of them had ethanol or any other alcohol listed as an ingredient. It is suspected that since each of the breads had yeast listed as an ingredient that alcohol may be a byproduct; however, no alcohol is listed as an ingredient. Regardless as to whether that turns out to be proven true, bread testing may turn out to be an effective, inexpensive courtroom demonstration. It can be done in a simplistic yet powerful way boiling down to the question to be posed to the trier of fact: What weight do you give the test value in this case done on a machine that tests positive on a mere bite of a hot dog bun?