Check out some similar questions!

bornin82 · Sep 26, 2011, 11:17 AM

DrBill,

I had about 4 beers late Saturday night into early Sunday morning. Would that show up on an ETG at 10am this Friday?

DrBill100 · Sep 26, 2011, 11:58 AM

Based on all of the test results to date the detection window would be 48 hours or less based on consumption noted.

As example, see Wojcik & Hawthorne.

bornin82 · Sep 26, 2011, 03:49 PM

Let me ask you this then, would it matter if I drank heavily the night before? Does EtG accumulate is what I'm trying to say?

DrBill100 · Sep 26, 2011, 04:35 PM

EtG is not cumulative. It is additive just like alcohol, but is eliminated at a steady rate beginning with first drink.

I don't understand your question about drinking heavily the night before. Before what?

bornin82 · Sep 27, 2011, 05:59 PM

I apologize, let me reword the question. I drank last Thursday and Friday pretty heavily, but only had those four on late Saturday night-early Sunday morning. Would that make a difference since I drank 3 consecutive days? I would have had nothing for over five days by Friday at 10am.

DrBill100 · Sep 27, 2011, 06:39 PM

A complicated drinker. Not necessary to calculate. Timing is from time of last drink early Sunday (minus metabolism).

Wouldn't keep pushing it. EtG is a very dangerous test. In this case you should be in the clear.

bornin82 · Sep 27, 2011, 06:47 PM

I have heard things about the EtG.. I read about cutoffs? What is a 100 cutoff and would it make a difference in my case?

DrBill100 · Sep 27, 2011, 07:00 PM

Originally Posted by bornin82

I have heard things about the etg..i read about cutoffs?? What is a 100 cutoff and would it make a difference in my case?

A 100 ng cutoff is notorious for picking up incidental exposure to alcohol. There is always a dangerous with a cutoff that low. It is however common.

In calculating elimination I use 100 just to be safe (graphs/studies). So that is figured in. The danger of the test, if 100 cutoff, isn't in what you drank as that will no longer exist... It would be in food, shaving lotion, or something you inhaled containing alcohol.

bornin82 · Sep 27, 2011, 07:07 PM

I don't want to sound like an idiot, but how can alcohol get into your system without actually drinking? I would like to learn more about this test...

DrBill100 · Sep 27, 2011, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by bornin82

I don't want to sound like an idiot, but how can alcohol get into your system without actually drinking? I would like to learn more about this test...

The primary means is through inhalation. Second is through your skin (transdermal), and orally in the form of food, cooking ingredients. All of which can create EtG above the 100 ng level.

Ethanol can also be created in your digestive tract by yeast (either consumed or endogenously produced) and sugar. Anything that creates ethanol will result in EtG and EtS.

The additive danger is that perhaps you inhale some shaving lotion (90% alcohol) and it creates a small amount of EtG, below cutoff. But after providing the urine sample it could easily create additional EtG before testing that brings it above the cutoff. There are literally thousands of products that you cannot avoid that will create systemic EtG.

If isn't enough to cause your eyes to water, then even if you provide a clean urine sample at time of test, EtG can be synthesized in the sample. That works in the other direction as well. EtG may degrade and disappear from a urine sample.

bornin82 · Sep 27, 2011, 07:32 PM

You gave me one study to read... are there anymore online? They said this test was used to detect consumption of alcohol but people not drinking can be detected as well, not very reliable...

DrBill100 · Sep 27, 2011, 07:48 PM

The test is unreliable. The test was designed to detect alcohol consumption. It is advertised and promoted for that singular purpose.

Validity is the measure of how well any given test can perform the purpose for which it was designed. Even the proponents of EtG testing admit it has zero validity.

Here is a website Greg Skipper maintains. He's the doctor that introduced the test to the US market in 2004. He does a reasonable job of recording test results there:

Ethylglucuronide

After you read through his info if you have further questions get back to me. I'm sure I have a lot of studies he has not made public. Some of which are available on line. You'd just have to tell me your area of specific interest as there are about 170 studies dating to 1995.

bornin82 · Sep 28, 2011, 11:51 AM

After reading the study on Wojick and Hawthorne it has opened my eyes. The people that administer this test call it the 80 hour test. Doesn't make sense when the average was 78 hours. I did see one extreme of 130 hours, but that seems to be an exception rather than the rule... seems that 80 hours would be an extreme to detect etg/ets... can you clarify this for me?

DrBill100 · Sep 28, 2011, 12:52 PM

EtG is a by-product of alcohol metabolism. It is dose dependent. One drink creates a small amount of EtG, 20 drinks create a lot of EtG. EtG is eliminated at a steady rate.

The 80 hour claim is based on research by Friedrich Wurst 1997, 2002. It became an advertising slogan promoted by the commercial testing industry. It is always preceded by "up to."

The 130 hour finding is now highly suspect. All of the early research is suspect as it was based on the stated assumption that EtG was "stable in urine sample." It is now known that it is not. (Hoiseth, 2007 or Rana, 2010 or Baranowski, 2008 and others) There are no secrets here it is rather a matter of failure to disclose to those using the tests and those being tested.

Detecting or measuring EtG in a urine sample is of no value when it is quite possible that the EtG was generated in the sample itself after the sample was obtained. The inherent dangers were pointed out by Helander 2009.

The test is being maintained because it is profitable. Millions of the tests are conducted annually.

Even Skipper, who still sets up testing programs, admits that the present commercial use of the test cannot be scientifically justified. (see Ethylglucuronide link above) You will also note that the above cited studies are mysteriously absent from the public directed media and ads.