Search

Legal professionals and others have suggested that vaping electronic cigarettes (e-cigs) prior to or during ethanol breath testing may produce false positives. Preliminary breath tests (PBTs) and evidentiary breath tests (EBTs) measure ethanol in exhaled breath and standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs) are used to assess impairment. Ethanol has been identified in e-cig liquids (e-liquids). Presented are a series of experiments designed to determine the mechanics of vaping ethanol using an e-cig and the effects of vaping ethanol on the SFSTs and breath tests used by law enforcement officers (LEO). Twelve participants (five females, age: 21–32 and seven males, age: 21–55), vaped either one or ten puffs of an e-liquid (0% or 20% ethanol). LEOs assessed impairment using SFSTs (12 and 42 min), PBTs (<1, 27, 32, 37 and 57 min) and EBTs (2, 29, 34, 39 and 59 min) post-vaping. A self-assessment test was administered post-vaping (22 and 52 min). Baseline responses for all measures were collected prior to vaping. Results demonstrated that ethanol in the e-liquids was aerosolized by e-cigs and produced particles that could reach the deep lung tissue based on mean-mass diameter. Ethanol was detected by PBT <3 min after participants vaped one (0.007–0.030 g/210 L) or ten puffs (013–0.074 g/210 L) of a 20% ethanol e-liquid. Ethanol was not detected by PBT at any subsequent time point. Ethanol was not detected by the EBT under any condition. Impairment was not indicated by the SFST. Some subjective effects were reported, but few statistically significant differences between conditions were indicated. A wait period prior to ethanol breath testing is not always mandated, depending on jurisdiction, or observed in all applications, such as workplace testing. The results demonstrate that a wait period must be employed to prevent vaping-related false-positive breath ethanol results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Employers seek to minimize business costs by creating conditions of employment. Relying on the presumably negative effects of smoking on variables such as workers' compensation claims, absenteeism and physical fitness scores, they seek a rational basis for requirements that employees refrain from smoking. No research has been found on police officer smoking rates relating to physical fitness, and the resulting economic variables of workers' compensation claims and absenteeism rates.Aims To compare police officer non-smoker and smoker physical fitness, absenteeism rates and workers' compensation claims.Methods The sample included 514 officers of a metropolitan police department. A physical fitness test was administered. Smoking status, yearly absenteeism rates and workers' compensation claims were collected.Results Male smokers were significantly older than non-smokers. An analysis of covariance controlling for sex and age indicated that smokers had significantly (P ≤ 0.05) lower fitness scores in sit and reach flexibility, sit-ups endurance, bench press strength and bicycle ergometer cardiovascular endurance. When neither age nor sex was controlled in males, a similar trend continued. However, in females only the sit and reach and sit-up tests demonstrated statistically significant differences. Fat percentage, step-test scores, absenteeism rates and workers' compensation claims were not statistically different.Conclusion These data do not provide a rational basis for the requirement that officers refrain from smoking when considering body fat and the economic savings of lower absenteeism rates and workers' compensation. To some extent, smoking policies can be justified by officers' physical fitness but there are age, gender and test protocol considerations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]