Behavioral Science & Analytics For Injury Reduction (BeSAFIR) Lab, Department of Emergency Medicine & the Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2021 May;45(5):1091-1099. doi: 10.1111/acer.14597. Epub 2021 May 9.
Although alcohol breath testing devices that pair with smartphones are promoted for the prevention of alcohol-impaired driving, their accuracy has not been established.
In a within-subjects laboratory study, we administered weight-based doses of ethanol to two groups of 10 healthy, moderate drinkers aiming to achieve a target peak blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.10%. We obtained a peak phlebotomy BAC and measured breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) with a police-grade device (Intoxilyzer 240) and two randomly ordered series of 3 consumer smartphone-paired devices (6 total devices) with measurements every 20 min until the BrAC reached <0.02% on the police device. Ten participants tested the first 3 devices, and the other 10 participants tested the other 3 devices. We measured mean paired differences in BrAC with 95% confidence intervals between the police-grade device and consumer devices.
The enrolled sample (N = 20) included 11 females; 15 white, 3 Asian, and 2 Black participants; with a mean age of 27 and mean BMI of 24.6. Peak BACs ranged from 0.06-0.14%. All 7 devices underestimated BAC by >0.01%, though the BACtrack Mobile Pro and police-grade device were consistently more accurate than the Drinkmate and Evoc. Compared with the police-grade device measurements, the BACtrack Mobile Pro readings were consistently higher, the BACtrack Vio and Alcohoot measurements similar, and the Floome, Drinkmake, and Evoc consistently lower. The BACtrack Mobile Pro and Alcohoot were most sensitive in detecting BAC driving limit thresholds, while the Drinkmate and Evoc devices failed to detect BAC limit thresholds more than 50% of the time relative to the police-grade device.
The accuracy of smartphone-paired devices varied widely in this laboratory study of healthy participants. Although some devices are suitable for clinical and research purposes, others underestimated BAC, creating the potential to mislead intoxicated users into thinking that they are fit to drive.
尽管与智能手机配套使用的酒精呼气测试设备被推广用于预防酒后驾车，但它们的准确性尚未得到证实。
在一项个体内实验室研究中，我们对两组 10 名健康的中度饮酒者给予基于体重的乙醇剂量，旨在达到目标的血液酒精浓度（BAC）峰值为 0.10%。我们通过静脉采血获得峰值 BAC，并使用警用级设备（Intoxilyzer 240）和两个随机订购的 3 个与智能手机配套的消费设备（共 6 个设备）进行测量，每 20 分钟测量一次，直到警用设备上的 BrAC 降至<0.02%。10 名参与者测试了前 3 个设备，其余 10 名参与者测试了其他 3 个设备。我们测量了警用级设备和消费设备之间 BrAC 的平均配对差异，并计算了 95%置信区间。
入组样本（N=20）包括 11 名女性；15 名白人，3 名亚洲人和 2 名黑人参与者；平均年龄为 27 岁，平均 BMI 为 24.6。峰值 BAC 范围为 0.06-0.14%。所有 7 个设备的 BAC 测量值都低估了>0.01%，尽管 BACtrack Mobile Pro 和警用级设备比 Drinkmate 和 Evoc 更准确。与警用级设备测量值相比，BACtrack Mobile Pro 的读数始终较高，BACtrack Vio 和 Alcohoot 的测量值相似，而 Floome、Drinkmake 和 Evoc 的读数则始终较低。BACtrack Mobile Pro 和 Alcohoot 在检测 BAC 驾驶限制阈值方面最敏感，而 Drinkmate 和 Evoc 设备相对于警用级设备，未能检测到 BAC 限制阈值的次数超过 50%。
在这项针对健康参与者的实验室研究中，智能手机配套设备的准确性差异很大。尽管一些设备适用于临床和研究目的，但其他设备低估了 BAC，有可能误导醉酒用户认为自己适合开车。
