Claims that ketogenic diets can routinely cause false DUI readings have become staples of internet legal forums, social media explainers, and unsupervised biohacking communities lacking peer review or clinical validation, despite the absence of supporting forensic or toxicology data. The narrative usually follows a predictable formula. Ketosis produces acetone. Breath and blood devices confuse acetone for alcohol. Innocent drivers are misidentified as impaired.
The science behind that story is far more limited and problematic than some proponents acknowledge.
Understanding where ketogenic metabolism matters, and where it does not, involves separating three subjects that are often blended into one. Those are:
- Ketone Biochemistry
- Electrochemical, Fuel Cell Breath Tests, and
- Forensic Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) analysis
When these topics are handled precisely, the real picture emerges. Ketogenic metabolism can occasionally generate conditions that affect some fuel cell breath testing and transdermal devices, particularly ignition interlocks, continuous alcohol monitoring “CAM” devices, and simple fuel-cell screens.
That said, a ketogenic diet and fasting-induced ketosis, do not in themselves create a reliable explanation for elevated ethanol Breath Alcohol Concentration (BrAC) results on modern EC/IR evidential instruments or validated dual-column gas chromatography blood tests as utilized in GS/MS sampling.
If you are dealing with a breath test result, an ignition interlock issue, or a continuous alcohol monitoring allegation and want straight answers about what the science actually shows, call or TEXT Bill Powers at the Powers Law Firm at 704-342-4357. Bill Powers is a past President of the North Carolina Advocates for Justice and has been a member of the North Carolina Governor’s Statewide Impaired Driving Task Force under Governors McCrory, Cooper and Stein.
Ketogenic Diet Metabolism | Breath Alcohol Concentration (BAC)
Generally speaking, a ketogenic diet shifts energy metabolism away from glycolysis toward fatty acid oxidation. Put simply, the body relies far less on sugar as its primary fuel source and instead shifts toward fat-derived energy, with ketone bodies supplying part of that demand.
The liver increases production of the ketone bodies acetoacetate and beta-hydroxybutyrate, with acetone appearing as a volatile breakdown byproduct. Breath acetone levels in ketosis can rise measurably, especially during prolonged fasting, strict carbohydrate restriction, or diabetic ketoacidosis.
Acetone itself is not ethanol.
It is a ketone, not an alcohol, and its electrochemical behavior differs substantially from ethanol.
However, acetone can be reduced inside the body to isopropanol via hepatic alcohol dehydrogenase pathways. This metabolism is documented in diabetics, extended fasting, dehydration states, and in certain medical stress conditions.
Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA)
Absolute or relative insulin deficiency causes uncontrolled lipolysis and fatty-acid oxidation in the liver, producing very high levels of acetoacetate and beta-hydroxybutyrate, with correspondingly elevated acetone in blood and breath. Multiple studies document measurable breath acetone in DKA that is orders of magnitude above baseline. In some patients, reduction of acetone to isopropanol is also observed.
Prolonged fasting or starvation states
Extended caloric deprivation forces reliance on fatty-acid oxidation with active ketogenesis. Breath acetone elevations have been documented after 24–72 hours of fasting, even in otherwise healthy subjects. Under dehydration or physiologic stress, endogenous isopropanol formation from acetone has been measurable in blood assays.
Severe carbohydrate restriction or rigid ketogenic dieting
Strict keto diets can induce sustained “nutritional ketosis.” In some individuals, particularly those with low glycogen reserves or high lipolytic response, breath acetone reaches levels comparable to milder pathological ketosis. Case reports involving fuel-cell interference almost always involve either extreme dietary restriction or concurrent dehydration.
Uncontrolled or brittle diabetes outside of classic DKA.
Patients may have persistent hyperketonemia without overt acidosis. These states still generate elevated acetone and intermittent endogenous isopropanol formation even when patients are ambulatory and not in medical crisis.
Acute dehydration states.
Dehydration increases fat mobilization and concentrates ketones in tissues and blood while impairing renal clearance of acetone metabolites. Dehydration alone, even without formal ketosis diagnoses, has been associated with detectable endogenous isopropanol in toxicology studies.
Critical illness or severe physiologic stress.
This includes trauma, sepsis, major infections, prolonged vomiting, postoperative catabolic states, or other illnesses that suppress carbohydrate intake and elevate counter-regulatory hormones (glucagon, cortisol, catecholamines). These hormonal shifts activate hepatic ketogenesis even outside formal fasting.
Alcohol-withdrawal states.
Stopping ethanol intake produces sympathetic overdrive and metabolic derangement that can trigger ketosis independent of dietary restriction. This can coexist with detectable endogenous isopropanol during periods when no ethanol ingestion is occurring.
Eating disorders involving caloric restriction.
Anorexia nervosa and highly restrictive eating disorders produce sustained ketosis and acetone elevation similar to prolonged fasting, with reported endogenous secondary alcohol formation.
Isopropanol is a secondary alcohol, and critically for DUI science, it can oxidize on many fuel-cell sensors.
That biochemical pathway represents the legitimate scientific foundation underneath ketogenic diet false-positive discussions.
The issue is not acetone “pretending to be ethanol.”
The issue is endogenous creation of isopropanol from elevated acetone within extreme metabolic conditions.
Ketosis | Electrochemical Breath Testing Devices
Where the ketosis issue becomes most relevant is with electrochemical fuel-cell devices that are broadly alcohol-responsive.
These include some ignition interlock systems and some handheld screening devices.
Electrochemical Fuel Cell (EFC) sensors detect alcohols by platinum oxidation reactions.
Despite marketing literature, some fuel cells may not be strictly ethanol-specific.
Methanol, isopropanol, n-propanol, and other light alcohols can produce measurable signals depending on the sensor architecture.
This limitation formed the basis of a well-known case report describing ignition interlock violations in a driver adhering to a strict ketogenic diet who denied drinking.
Investigators in that case report concluded that the ignition interlock device was reacting to isopropanol generated from metabolic acetone, not to consumed ethanol.
Similar fuel-cell sensitivities have been documented in the engineering literature and in interlock field-testing data.
Those findings are real, and they matter in the right context.
They justify careful scrutiny by DUI defense lawyers of interlock violations, willful refusal prosecutions that lean heavily on portable fuel-cell devices purportedly offered as positive preliminary breath test results to establish probable cause for arrest and as confirmatory evidence rather than tools that should be excluded from consideration by the finder of fact, and cases resting primarily on breath screening where laboratory-grade confirmation is absent.
Unfortunately, and to be fair and fully transparent, these studies are sometimes stretched into evidentiary settings where the device design and operating principles are materially different.
Put simply, some defense lawyers try to force a square peg into a round hole.
In working toward a viable defense strategy, it can be tempting to start from the assumption that a breath alcohol result must be “wrong” and that the client could not have been appreciably impaired, then search for creative theories of measurement imprecision to support that conclusion.
The Jones & Rössner Ketogenic Diet False-Positive Breath Test Study (Journal of Analytical Toxicology, 2007)
One frequently referenced scientific authority linking ketogenic metabolism to alcohol testing issues is Jones & Rössner, False-positive breath-alcohol test after a ketogenic diet (Journal of Analytical Toxicology, 2007).
The paper describes a 59-year-old man on a very low-calorie ketogenic diet (VLCD) who was a lifelong teetotaler and denied any alcohol consumption. His vehicle had been equipped with an ignition interlock device utilizing electrochemical fuel-cell breath testing technology. Despite no drinking, the interlock repeatedly blocked vehicle ignition following breath sampling.
The authors documented that the subject’s VLCD produced substantial ketonemia, resulting in elevated blood concentrations of acetoacetate, beta-hydroxybutyrate, and acetone.
Acetone, being volatile, appeared in the subject’s breath.
Under specific metabolic conditions, acetone can be reduced endogenously to isopropanol via hepatic alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) pathways, yielding a secondary alcohol detectable by fuel-cell sensors, which respond broadly to oxidizable alcohol compounds rather than ethanol alone.
Because the interlock device’s fuel cell oxidizes low-molecular-weight alcohols without chemical discrimination, the authors concluded that the device likely responded to metabolically produced isopropanol rather than consumed ethanol.
The study ultimately concluded that ketogenic metabolic states may pose a risk of false-positive breath-alcohol readings in fuel-cell-based detection devices, particularly where extreme dietary restriction leads to pronounced ketonemia.
The authors recommended that authorities recognize this physiological variable when scheduling or interpreting safety-sensitive alcohol testing events.
Interpreting the Jones & Rössner
Defense lawyers would be remiss in failing to note that the Jones & Rössner publication is a single-case report, not a population-based trial.
It establishes biological plausibility, not incidence rates or predictable effect frequencies.
It demonstrates that the phenomenon can occur, not how often it occurs or under what standardized threshold conditions.
Equally important, the metabolic context matters.
The subject was undergoing a very low-calorie ketogenic diet, representing a metabolic extreme rather than the routine carbohydrate restriction practiced by most people who describe themselves as “keto.”
The degree of ketonemia observed in the study is not present in typical dietary fluctuations or casual low-carb diets.
The detection platform (the “device”) also matters.
The reported interference occurred on an ignition interlock device (IID) using electrochemical fuel-cell technology.
The IID (sometimes referred to as the “blow and go”) category generally lacks compound-specific discrimination and responds broadly to short-chain alcohol oxidation.
The study does not involve modern infrared-coupled EC/IR breath analyzers (such as the Intoximeter EC/IR II evidentiary breath test used in North Carolina courts) or dual-column headspace gas chromatography blood testing, which operate under fundamentally different analytical principles and provide compound separation or spectral confirmation.
Jones & Rössner as a basis for learning and understanding
Limitations and applicability on a case-specific basis aside, Jones & Rössner stands as valid scientific documentation that ketogenic metabolic states, particularly under extreme dietary restriction, can generate false-positive breath results on fuel-cell-based detection systems absent drinking.
It supports a legitimate biological mechanism for possible sensor interference in some ignition interlocks, portable breath testing (PBT), and alcohol monitoring platforms such as Secured Continuous Alcohol Monintoring SCRAM device that share the same electrochemical detection chemistry.
At the same time, its findings should not be overstated.
The study does not establish that ketosis routinely distorts breath or blood alcohol values across all testing platforms, nor does it undermine the chemical validity of laboratory chromatography methods or compound-specific infrared breath analysis when properly operated.
Its true evidentiary value lies in combating overconfidence rather than in proving universal unreliability.
The paper reinforces a simple forensic truth.
Screening devices based on fuel-cell oxidation do not always identify ethanol specifically, and some fuel cells will respond to endogenous secondary alcohols generated under certain metabolic conditions – Bill Powers, DUI Defense Lawyer
In those contexts, heightened scrutiny is scientifically justified. Outside those contexts, metabolic state alone is rarely sufficient to rebut alcohol test results.
EC/IR Evidentiary Devices and Ketone Interference
Modern evidential breath analyzers such as the Intoximeter EC/IR II employ two simultaneous analytical systems:
-
Infrared spectroscopy, using ethanol-specific absorption wavelengths and real-time breath profiling including CO₂ monitoring.
-
Electrochemical fuel-cell detection, responsible for the numeric BrAC result.
The IR channel functions as both an ethanol confirmation mechanism and an interferent screening tool. It evaluates breath curve morphology, spectral ethanol matching, and mouth alcohol profiles while internally cross-validating the electrochemical fuel-cell output.
Importantly, Intoximeters refuses to disclose the “proprietary” source code governing how the EC/IR II algorithms construct the breath curve, integrate signal data from the infrared sensor and fuel cell, or determine whether the combined inputs satisfy internal acceptance criteria for a reported result.
That lack of transparency is significant, if not disturbing.
In North Carolina, the predecessor infrared-only system (Intoxilyzer 5000) served as the primary determinant of evidentiary breath readings.
The current EC/IR II, by contrast, collects data from two distinct analytic channels, yet the manufacturer does not provide public or defense-accessible documentation explaining whether or how discrepancies between those channels are reconciled, weighted, or resolved before a final value is displayed.
From a forensic standpoint, this absence of methodological disclosure presents a genuine concern.
When a device relies on undisclosed algorithms to transform raw chemical sensor input into a legally decisive number, independent verification of reliability becomes impossible.
The issue is not merely academic. It bears directly on transparency, confrontation rights, and scientific verifiability – Bill Powers, North Carolina DWI Defense Lawyer
These devices are explicitly validated to exhibit negligible response to acetone at physiologic and pathologic concentrations observed in ketosis and diabetic ketoacidosis.
Performance evaluations conducted on evidential platforms demonstrate that acetone alone does not produce reportable ethanol results on many, if not most modern IR-based machines.
The isopropanol pathway still theoretically exists. But even when minor endogenous isopropanol is present, the combination of ethanol-specific IR wavelength discrimination, breath-curve diagnostics, and device interferent algorithms markedly reduces the chance that this compound produces a valid evidential breath reading.
When interference is suspected, modern breath testing devices frequently generate flags such as “interferent detected” rather than printing a numeric BrAC.
Thus, while ketosis can create conditions capable of triggering some fuel-cell devices, evidential breath analyzers designed for courtroom use largely neutralize that risk.
Ketogenic physiology does not provide a reliable explanation for meaningful elevated BrAC values produced by EC/IR instruments operating within protocol.
Why We Shouldn’t Call Breath-Testing Devices “Instruments”
It is not a good idea to refer to breath-testing devices as “instruments” because the word itself tends to frame the discussion before the science ever begins.
In laboratory chemistry, true instruments identify compounds through transparent, reproducible methods that allow independent verification of both the raw data and the analytic process.
Breath-testing systems operate differently.
They estimate alcohol concentration indirectly, combining sensor reactions, physiological assumptions about breath samples, device calibration parameters, and proprietary algorithms that convert those signals into a reported number.
None of that means breath testing is unreliable or unnecessary.
These systems play an important role in impaired-driving enforcement in North Carolina and, when properly operated, often provide useful evidence.
The problem arises when terminology implies a level of certainty the technology itself cannot independently demonstrate.
Language that elevates breath devices into the category of laboratory “instruments” risks overstating their analytical specificity and understating the operational and biological variables that affect real-world accuracy.
Truly reliable scientific results do not require narrative reinforcement through word choice. Their credibility stands on validation, transparency, reproducibility, and error characterization – Bill Powers, Criminal Defense Attorney
When breath-testing evidence is strong, it does not need semantic framing to bolster its value.
When it is weak or influenced by uncontrolled variables, careful terminology helps prevent overconfidence from filling the gap where scientific uncertainty remains.
Using plain language keeps the discussion honest.
Breath-testing devices are valuable measurement systems. They are not infallible chemical identifiers.
Calling them what they are promotes fair evaluation rather than automatic deference, serving both enforcement interests and the integrity of the adjudicative process.
Continuous Alcohol Monitoring (CAM) | Ketogenic False Positives
CAM devices, commonly referred to as ankle monitors and “ankle bracelets,” traditionally rely almost exclusively on transdermal alcohol detection using electrochemical fuel cells.
The sensors measure the oxidation of volatile alcohol molecules diffusing through the skin over time.
The biochemical substrate for detection is essentially the same as that used by ignition interlocks and handheld fuel-cell breath devices.
These monitors do not use infrared spectroscopy, do not incorporate spectral discrimination, and do not apply breath curve or CO₂ analysis.
They also have difficulty distinguishing ethanol from other volatile alcohols that oxidize at the electrode surface.
Because of this, continuous alcohol monitors are fairly entitled broad-reactivity systems.
They detect small aliphatic alcohols, including isopropanol, methanol, and n-propanol to varying degrees, depending on sensor tuning and calibration algorithms.
This is not controversial within electrical engineering or analytical chemistry circles, but it remains under-acknowledged in courtroom discussions (and DMV Hearings in North Carolina) of monitor “violations.”
What makes CAM devices particularly vulnerable to ketone-related interference is the duration and cumulative nature of the sampling window – Bill Powers, DWI Defense Attorney in North Carolina
Breath testing relies on a single-point measurement. Transdermal monitoring aggregates readings over hours.
If ketosis produces sustained low-level isopropanol generation rather than a brief transient spike, even modest cross-reactivity could push transdermal curves above violation thresholds over extended timeframes.
Those curves are frequently algorithmically “resolved” into alcohol events without chemical specificity testing.
Unlike laboratory GC testing or even dual-channel EC/IR breath analyzers, CAM systems lack any orthogonal method (statistically independent) for compound discrimination.
No infrared cross-check exists. No chromatographic confirmation exists. The decision that a curve represents “alcohol consumption” is based purely on proprietary mathematical modeling of signal slope patterns, not on compound identification.
Ketone-related isopropanol thus becomes materially relevant because the system has no methodological mechanism to identify whether the oxidized molecule is ethanol or another alcohol.
CAM – Continuous Alcohol Monitoring and Environmental Exposure to VOCs
The CAM device vulnerability is intensified by environmental exposure confounders that interact with fuel-cell reactivity in CAM devices.
Dermal (skin) contact with solvents, sanitizers, cleaning agents, or industrial vapors containing alcohol derivatives can transiently elevate transdermal sensor readings.
These interactions compound with metabolic ketone pathways that may already be feeding isopropanol into the diffusion gradient.
The device’s algorithms attempt to distinguish ingestion from exposure by analyzing curve morphology, but those algorithms cannot analyze molecular identity. They operate on pattern recognition alone.
This places CAM devices in a distinct scientific category from laboratory-grade alcohol testing.
Their results do not represent direct ethanol measurement. They represent continuous oxidation sensor output interpreted through behavioral algorithms.
When ketosis is present, especially when documented by blood beta-hydroxybutyrate or acetone elevation, endogenous isopropanol becomes a legitimate potential source of false attribution in monitor curves.
This risk is not speculative.
It flows directly from well-established metabolic chemistry combined with the known limitations of electrochemical fuel-cell specificity.
Many of the portable breath testers, interlock breath units, and continuous monitors used across jurisdictions are built on essentially the same fuel-cell platforms, simply adapted to different form factors.
The chemistry does not change when the sensor is mounted in a mouthpiece device versus attached to an ankle monitor. I
f cross-reactivity exists in one application, the underlying limitation exists in the others.
Claims that alcohol monitoring devices “solve” interference issues through proprietary filtering or algorithms are undercut without truly reliable discrimination data, especially given their importance to the person affected either in court or facing down a Hearing Officer at the North Carolina Department of Transportation / Division of Motor Vehicles (NCDMV).
Blood Alcohol Testing, Ketones, and Dual-Column Gas Chromatography
Blood testing presents a separate, and generally more reliable analysis of true BAC – Blood Alcohol Concentration and the presence of other impairing substances, relative to DWI charges in North Carolina.
Clinical and forensic ethanol testing relies on headspace gas chromatography with flame ionization detection, almost always run using dual columns with dissimilar stationary phases.
An ethanol result is accepted only when retention times align on both columns against ethanol standards and an internal control.
This method does exactly what ketone-interference theorizing ignores.
It separates ethanol from acetone, isopropanol, methanol, and n-propanol into distinct chromatographic peaks.
Elevated acetone or isopropanol in a ketogenic or diabetic blood sample should appear as independent peaks rather than inflate ethanol concentrations.
Therefore, in a competently run dual-column GC method, ketones should not be mistaken for ethanol.
When laboratories document acetone or isopropanol, they identify those compounds specifically rather than conflating them with ethanol.
Ketosis alone does not create false blood alcohol elevations under validated GC conditions. When analytical problems occur, they might involve:
-
Single-column methods with inadequate separation.
-
Poor resolution or chromatogram interpretation.
-
Mechanical peak integration without manual review.
-
Sample fermentation or contamination unrelated to ketosis.
-
Method deviations or quality-control lapses.
Ketogenic metabolism may coexist with these errors, but it does not drive them.
BIG PICTURE Legal Commentary: Ketosis should not cause false blood ethanol results when dual-column GC is properly performed.
How Ketogenic Diet Science Translates to DUI Charges in North Carolina
The ketogenic diet evidence has limited application in court, relative to impaired driving charges, and therefore should be evaluated within strict scientific bounds.
While ketonemia rarely bears on substantive evidentiary questions concerning guilt or innocence, it can affect readings produced by ignition interlock devices and continuous alcohol monitoring systems, given the lower-specificity fuel-cell technologies those platforms employ.
As stated,
- Ketosis alone is an unlikely explanation for elevated results on modern EC/IR evidential breath machines.
- Ketosis should not cause falsely elevated results on competently performed dual-column headspace GC blood testing.
Where ketogenic metabolism becomes legally relevant is not in abstract physiology but in case-specific discovery and cross-examination. That inquiry focuses on practical verification issues rather than metabolic theory, including:
- Whether the device involved was a screening platform or a confirmatory evidentiary system.
- Whether the device manufacturer has established and published cross-reactivity data for secondary alcohols and ketone metabolites.
- Whether any interferent or diagnostic logs were generated and disclosed.
- Whether the blood laboratory employed a validated dual-column gas chromatography method.
- Whether chromatograms are available for independent technical review rather than summary reporting alone.
- Whether acetone or isopropanol peaks were present or excluded in the breath or blood analyses.
These are the questions that transform metabolic discussion into evidentiary analysis. They move the inquiry from speculative physiology to verifiable testing integrity, which is where scientifically grounded defenses either succeed or fail.
Why Mitochondrial Manipulation Does Not Change This Equation
Some authors attempt to extend ketogenic claims into a generalized theory that any mitochondrial manipulation, supplement use, or metabolic modifier might distort alcohol testing. That is unsupported.
While mitochondrial redox processes influence energy production, they do not meaningfully alter ethanol generation, partitioning into alveolar breath, or chromatographic identification.
Breath alcohol testing is driven by ingestion, absorption, hepatic oxidation, pulmonary exchange, and sensor chemistry, not by variations in electron transport efficiency.
Mitochondrial agents such as methylene blue, metabolic stimulants, or dietary redox modifiers have no established capacity to create ethanol, generate isopropanol at litigation-significant levels, or distort evidential breath or blood ethanol testing.
A ketogenic diet alone does not explain elevated readings on modern EC/IR evidential breath testing devices or validated dual-column blood testing. In rare metabolic extremes involving significant ketonemia, endogenous isopropanol formation can affect fuel-cell screening systems such as ignition interlocks, portable breath tests, and continuous alcohol monitors, but not courtroom-grade confirmation testing performed according to scientific standards. Can a ketogenic diet cause a false DUI breath test?
Acetone itself is not ethanol and does not oxidize the same way on breath-testing sensors. Under certain medical or extreme dietary conditions, acetone may be converted in the body into isopropanol, which is a secondary alcohol capable of triggering broad-reactivity fuel-cell detectors. This phenomenon is documented in specific screening platforms but does not reliably impact modern infrared-coupled evidential breath tests. Does acetone from ketosis register as alcohol on breath tests?
Ketosis does not cause false positive blood alcohol results when testing is performed using validated dual-column headspace gas chromatography. This methodology chemically separates ethanol from acetone, isopropanol, methanol, and related compounds into distinct chromatographic peaks. Ketones and secondary alcohols are identified individually rather than misclassified as ethanol when proper laboratory protocols are followed. Can ketosis cause a false positive blood alcohol result?
Ignition interlock systems, portable fuel-cell breath testers, and continuous alcohol monitoring (CAM) devices are the platforms most susceptible to metabolic interference, because they tend to rely on broad-reactivity electrochemical fuel cells without molecular discrimination between ethanol and other oxidizable alcohols. Transdermal CAM devices present particular risk due to cumulative prolonged sampling and algorithmic curve interpretation rather than compound identification. What alcohol testing devices are most sensitive to ketogenic interference?
Ketogenic metabolism becomes legally relevant not as a general innocence argument but during case-specific discovery and cross-examination, particularly when screening devices are involved rather than laboratory-grade confirmation testing. Critical inquiries include device cross-reactivity validation, protonated interferent logging, disclosure of diagnostic data, chromatogram availability in blood testing, and whether secondary alcohols such as isopropanol were present or excluded in reported results. Can ketogenic metabolism impact DUI charges in North Carolina?
Closing Perspective | Breath Testing Metabolic Science
Ketogenic diet discussions frequently overstate the scientific evidence. The legitimate science addresses sensitivity within fuel-cell screening systems, particularly ignition interlocks and continuous alcohol monitoring devices, rather than courtroom-grade breath or blood testing. EC/IR breath analyzers and validated dual-column headspace gas chromatography blood methods are specifically designed to differentiate ethanol from ketone metabolites and related secondary alcohols when properly operated.
Algorithms do not neutralize chemistry. They approximate or interpret it. Without compound-specific identification, endogenous production of isopropanol during ketosis remains a scientifically plausible interference pathway, especially in continuous monitoring platforms where prolonged sampling and signal accumulation can amplify low-level cross-reactivity. That risk is a function of sensor design, not physiology alone.
From a practical evidentiary standpoint, ketogenic metabolism is unlikely to cause falsely elevated blood alcohol results when validated dual-column gas chromatography is competently performed. It is unlikely, though theoretically possible, to affect EC/IR breath results depending on internal thresholds and algorithm responses. It is most relevant to ignition interlocks, portable fuel-cell breath testers, and continuous alcohol monitoring systems that rely on broad oxidative detection without chemical discrimination and that aggregate readings over time.
This hierarchy reflects the actual science, not marketing narratives. Breath testing technology serves an important role in impaired-driving enforcement, but it does not operate in a chemically uniform way across platforms. Accurate analysis requires device-specific scrutiny, transparent data review, and evidence evaluated within the limits of the methods used to obtain it.
If you have questions about breath testing science, metabolic factors, continuous alcohol monitoring issues, or how these matters apply in a specific case, Bill Powers at the Powers Law Firm is available to talk with you directly.
Call or TEXT 704-342-4357