As on the FST, any instrument response below these levels reports the results as 0.000 g/210 L. It is possible that more beverages could have exhibited this same mouth alcohol effect on the initial test if each of the beverages had been tested multiple times and with multiple subjects. However, all expected blood alcohol concentrations after this amount of consumption in this timeframe were less than 0.005 g/dL, and the results on all instruments and for all subjects were 0.000 g/210 L after the observation period. Therefore, there is no realistic possibility that any amount of testing using these beverages would have resulted in positive breath alcohol results following the observation period, and as such, further testing to generate potentially different results only in the initial breath test portion of the experiment was considered superfluous.
The negative (0.000 g/210 L) results after the observation pe- riod were not unexpected, nor surprising. However, breath alcohol tests are becoming more frequently used in contexts in which observation periods prior to testing are not strictly mandated. Generally, statutes regarding consumption of alcohol by minors do not include this safeguard. This omission is relevant to this study, as energy drink marketing is often directed pri- marily at teenagers and young adults. Alcohol analyzers such as ignition interlock devices have no way of guarding against a positive reading due only to mouth alcohol. Therefore, care must be shown in the consideration of potentially false-positive alcohol test on these devices, and law enforcement should be trained to apply observation periods prior to any breath alcohol test where the result may be used as evidence.
As on the FST, any instrument response below these levels reports the results as 0.000 g/210 L. It is possible that more beverages could have exhibited this same mouth alcohol effect on the initial test if each of the beverages had been tested multiple times and with multiple subjects. However, all expected blood alcohol concentrations after this amount of consumption in this timeframe were less than 0.005 g/dL, and the results on all instruments and for all subjects were 0.000 g/210 L after the observation period. Therefore, there is no realistic possibility that any amount of testing using these beverages would have resulted in positive breath alcohol results following the observation period, and as such, further testing to generate potentially different results only in the initial breath test portion of the experiment was considered superfluous.The negative (0.000 g/210 L) results after the observation pe- riod were not unexpected, nor surprising. However, breath alcohol tests are becoming more frequently used in contexts in which observation periods prior to testing are not strictly mandated. Generally, statutes regarding consumption of alcohol by minors do not include this safeguard. This omission is relevant to this study, as energy drink marketing is often directed pri- marily at teenagers and young adults. Alcohol analyzers such as ignition interlock devices have no way of guarding against a positive reading due only to mouth alcohol. Therefore, care must be shown in the consideration of potentially false-positive alcohol test on these devices, and law enforcement should be trained to apply observation periods prior to any breath alcohol test where the result may be used as evidence.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..