K093879 · ACON Laboratories, Inc. · DIC · Aug 6, 2010 · Clinical Toxicology
Device Facts
Record ID
K093879
Device Name
MISSION SALIVA ALCOHOL TEST STRIP
Applicant
ACON Laboratories, Inc.
Product Code
DIC · Clinical Toxicology
Decision Date
Aug 6, 2010
Decision
SESE
Submission Type
Traditional
Regulation
21 CFR 862.3040
Device Class
Class 2
Indications for Use
The Mission Saliva Alcohol Test Strip is a screening test used to semi-quantitatively measure alcohol in human saliva. The test strip indicates relative Blood Alcohol Concentration at 0.0%, 0.02%, 0.04%, 0.08%, and 0.30% cut-off levels. Results are used in the diagnosis of alcohol intoxication. For in vitro diagnostic use only.
Device Story
Mission Saliva Alcohol Test Strip is a single-use, firm plastic test strip with a reactive test pad. User applies saliva to the test pad; alcohol in saliva reacts with alcohol oxidase via a chromogenic reaction to produce a color change. The user compares the resulting color against a provided color chart to determine semi-quantitative BAC levels (0.0%, 0.02%, 0.04%, 0.08%, 0.30%). Used in point-of-care or home settings by laypersons or professionals for rapid screening of alcohol intoxication. Output provides immediate visual indication of alcohol presence, assisting in clinical or personal decision-making regarding intoxication status.
Clinical Evidence
No clinical trials were required. Performance was established via bench testing and a consumer study. Consumer study (n=73 total participants) compared lay-user results to an Alco-Sensor IV breath test. Analytical performance included precision (100% correct rate across 60 tests per concentration), interference studies (evaluating cigarette smoke, food, OTC products, and volatile substances), and lighting condition testing. Results confirmed 100% agreement with expected values for most conditions, with specific labeling limitations added for smoking, eating, and lighting (sodium vapor).
Technological Characteristics
Firm plastic test strip with reagent pad containing tetramethylbenzidine, alcohol oxidase, and peroxidase. Semi-quantitative chromogenic assay. Visual readout via color comparison chart. Dimensions: strip format. Connectivity: none (standalone). Sterilization: not specified. Software: none.
Indications for Use
Indicated for use by laypersons and professionals as a screening test to semi-quantitatively measure alcohol in human saliva to diagnose alcohol intoxication. Provides relative Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) at 0.0%, 0.02%, 0.04%, 0.08%, and 0.30% levels.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
An alcohol test system is a device intented to measure alcohol (e.g., ethanol, methanol, isopropanol, etc.) in human body fluids (e.g., serum, whole blood, and urine). Measurements obtained by this device are used in the diagnosis and treatment of alcohol intoxication and poisoning.
Predicate Devices
Saliva Alcohol Test (k894001)
Submission Summary (Full Text)
{0}
1
510(k) SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE DETERMINATION
DECISION SUMMARY
ASSAY ONLY TEMPLATE
A. 510(k) Number:
k093879
B. Purpose for Submission:
New Device
C. Measurand:
Saliva Alcohol
D. Type of Test:
Chromogenic assay; semi-quantitative; visually read color change
E. Applicant:
ACON Laboratories, Inc.
F. Proprietary and Established Names:
Mission Saliva Alcohol Test Strip
G. Regulatory Information:
1. Regulation section:
21 CFR 862.3040, Alcohol Test System
2. Classification:
Class II
3. Product code:
DIC
4. Panel:
Toxicology (91)
{1}
H. Intended Use:
1. Intended use(s):
See Indications for use, below.
2. Indication(s) for use:
The Mission Saliva Alcohol Test Strip is a screening test used to semi-quantitatively measure alcohol in human saliva. The test strip indicates relative Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) at 0.0%, 0.02%, 0.04%, 0.08%, and 0.30% cut-off levels. Results are used in the diagnosis of alcohol intoxication. For in vitro diagnostic use only.
3. Special conditions for use statement(s):
The device is for over the counter use
The assay is a disposable test for one-time-use.
4. Special instrument requirements:
Mission Saliva Alcohol Test Strip
I. Device Description:
The Mission Saliva Alcohol Test Strip is a visually read semi-quantitative test for the detection of alcohol in saliva. The test strip indicates the relative Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) at 5 different cut-off levels (negative, 0.02%, 0.04%, 0.08% and 0.3%). The device consists of a saliva collection cup and test strip (25 each per package). The resultant color on the test strip is compared to the color blocks printed on the pouch.
J. Substantial Equivalence Information:
1. Predicate device name(s):
Saliva Alcohol Test; Enzymatics Inc.
2. Predicate 510(k) number(s):
k894001
3. Comparison with predicate:
{2}
| Similarities and Differences | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Candidate device | Predicate device (k894001) |
| Intended use/indications for use | The Saliva Alcohol Test Strip is a rapid screening test used for measuring alcohol in human saliva. Results are used in the diagnosis of alcohol intoxication. | Same |
| Methodology | Chromogenic | Same |
| Enzyme | Alcohol oxidase | Alcohol dehydrogenase |
| Sample Types | Saliva | Same |
| Measuring Units | Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC%) | BAC% and mg/dL |
| Measuring Range | Negative
0.02%
0.04%
0.08%
0.30% | 0.01% to 0.145%
(and 10 to 145 mg/dL) |
| Result | Semi-quantitative | Quantitative |
| Read Time Window | 2 to 3 minutes | 2 to 15 minutes |
## K. Standard/Guidance Document Referenced (if applicable):
- NHTSA/DOT Highway Safety Programs; Model Specifications for Screening Devices to Measure Alcohol in Bodily Fluids, (Federal Register/Vol. 59, No. 147, August 2, 1994/Notices/39382.
- NHTSA/DOT Highway Safety Programs; Model Specifications for Screening Devices to Measure Alcohol in Bodily Fluids, (Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 62, March 3, 2008/Notices.
## L. Test Principle:
The Mission Saliva Alcohol Test Strip is a firm plastic strip with a reagent pad attached at the tip that contains tetramethylbenzidine, alcohol oxidase, and peroxidase. The test is based on two coupled enzymatic reactions. In the first reaction step ethanol in the sample is oxidized to aldehyde by alcohol oxidase. The second step uses the enzyme peroxidase to catalyze the oxidation of TMB, a color indicator substrate. The color change corresponds to the amount of alcohol present. The results are read by comparing the color of the test with the color chart printed on the pouch.
{3}
M. Performance Characteristics (if/when applicable):
1. Analytical performance:
a. Precision/Reproducibility:
Negative saliva samples were collected from three volunteers who provided the sample for each day of testing. Each volunteer was instructed to abstain from consuming alcohol for 24 hours and not to smoke or consume any food or drink 15 minutes prior to sample collection. The alcohol test solutions were prepared from a stock solution containing ethanol standards in an aqueous solution (from Sigma) diluted to each of the four cut off levels and within +/- 60% of each cut off. The concentration of the alcohol in the solution was confirmed on the Roche C501 using alcohol test reagent ETOH Gen. 2. The test strip was saturated with each sample and allowed to stand for 2 min and was then compared to the color chart. A total of 20 replicates were tested for over the course of three days. Three test strip lots were tested by 3 technicians, 10 replicates of which were tested on day 1 and the 5 replicates on days 2 and 3 for a total of 60 tests per concentration.
The study results demonstrated 100% correct results rate, see table below:
| Cutoff | BAC | Lot | N | Result from Lay-user compared to color block | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | | Neg | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.3 | % Correct Results |
| Neg | 0.0% | 1 | 20 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100% |
| | | 2 | 20 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100% |
| | | 3 | 20 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100% |
| -60% cutoff | 0.008% | 1 | 20 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100% |
| | | 2 | 20 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100% |
| | | 3 | 20 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100% |
| Cutoff | 0.02% | 1 | 20 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100% |
| | | 2 | 20 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100% |
| | | 3 | 20 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100% |
| +60% cutoff | 0.032% | 1 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 100% |
| | | 2 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 100% |
| | | 3 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 100% |
| -60% cutoff | 0.016% | 1 | 20 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100% |
| | | 2 | 20 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100% |
| | | 3 | 20 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100% |
| Cutoff | 0.04% | 1 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 100% |
| | | 2 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 100% |
| | | 3 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 100% |
| | | 1 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 100% |
{4}
| +60% cutoff | 0.064% | 2 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 100% |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | 3 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 100% |
| -60% cutoff | 0.032% | 1 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 100% |
| | | 2 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 100% |
| | | 3 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 100% |
| Cutoff | 0.08% | 1 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 100% |
| | | 2 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 100% |
| | | 3 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 100% |
| +60% cutoff | 0.128% | 1 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 100% |
| | | 2 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 100% |
| | | 3 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 100% |
| -60% cutoff | 0.120% | 1 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 100% |
| | | 2 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 100% |
| | | 3 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 100% |
| Cutoff | 0.3% | 1 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 100% |
| | | 2 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 100% |
| | | 3 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 100% |
| +60% cutoff | 0.480% | 1 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 100% |
| | | 2 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 100% |
| | | 3 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 100% |
# b. Linearity/assay reportable range:
Not applicable. The assay is semi-quantitative and does not report a numerical concentration.
# c. Traceability, Stability, Expected values (controls, calibrators, or methods):
Each lot of test strips is verified during manufacturing by using control solutions that have been prepared from purchased ethanol solutions that are confirmed using a chemistry analyzer. The control results from the test strips are read visually by comparing to the color chart and then the color intensity verified using a spectrophotometer. New lots are also visually checked in comparison to the previously released lot.
The sponsor performed a study to determine the storage conditions for the saliva samples. Samples were prepared from a pool of negative saliva samples collected from alcohol-free volunteers and by adding ethanol from a stock solution to obtain $0.02\%$ and $0.08\%$ ethanol. Each sample was divided into 12 aliquots and stored at room temperature $(15 - 25^{\circ}\mathrm{C})$ and refrigerated $(2-8^{\circ}\mathrm{C})$ ranging from 1 to 24 hours. An aliquot of each sample was tested immediately to serve as the 0 hour time point. A total of 20 replicates were tested for each concentration at each temperature at each time point.
{5}
The results support the claims in the labeling that the samples can be stored for up to 4 hours at room temperature (15-25°C) or up to 8 hours refrigerated (2-8°C).
d. Detection limit:
The sponsor performed a study where 20 negative saliva samples obtained from 20 non-alcoholic volunteers were tested. Each volunteer collected their own saliva and read the results on the test strip. A total of 20 replicates were tested for each sample using three lots of test strips. The same tests were also read by a laboratory technician. The results demonstrated that 100% of the negative samples were correctly identified, therefore demonstrating that this device had no false positives in this study.
e. Analytical specificity:
The sponsor performed the following studies to evaluate the effect of cigarette smoke, volatile substances, lighting and temperature on the results of the test.
Cigarette smoke:
The effect of cigarette smoke on the Mission Saliva Alcohol Test Strip was evaluated by selecting 10 volunteers, 5 of which were not alcohol drinkers and 5 who were designated alcohol-drinkers. On the day of testing each participant was smoked ½ to 1 cigarette then provided saliva samples at 1 minute and 15 minutes after smoking. For the alcohol drinking participants, saliva samples were also collected and tested 15 minutes after alcohol consumption and prior to smoking. The non-alcohol drinkers collected saliva from the alcohol drinking participants and performed the test in 5 replicates at each time point. The same tests were also read by a laboratory technician for comparison. Additionally, the technician also checked that BAC level of each alcohol-drinker using the Alco-Sensor IV at each time point. Results from the lay-users are as follows:
| ID | Alco-Sensor IV | Time after smoking | Result compared to color block | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | Neg | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.3 | % Correct Results |
| 1 | 0.070% | Before | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 100% |
| | 0.076% | <1 min | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 100% |
| | 0.085% | 15 min | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 100% |
| 2 | 0.072% | Before | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 100% |
| | 0.065% | <1 min | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 100% |
| | 0.035% | 15 min | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 100% |
| 3 | 0.065% | Before | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 100% |
| | 0.062% | <1 min | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 100% |
| | 0.083% | 15 min | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 100% |
{6}
7
| 4 | 0.110% | Before | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 100% |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | 0.095% | <1 min | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 100% |
| | 0.091% | 15 min | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 100% |
| 5 | 0.025% | Before | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100% |
| | 0.022% | <1 min | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100% |
| | 0.019% | 15 min | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100% |
Results demonstrate a 100% correct call rate for non-alcohol drinkers 15 min after smoking. False positive results were obtained when the test was performed less than 1 minute following smoking. The package insert contains the limitation that the user is instructed to wait 20 minutes after smoking before performing the test.
## Temperature:
The effect of temperature on the Mission Saliva Alcohol Test Strip was evaluated using alcohol-free saliva from volunteers and control solutions prepared at each cutoff level and at +/-60% of each cut off level tested at six different temperature conditions: 2-8, 10, 15, 27, 30, and 40°C. The concentration of the alcohol in the prepared solution was confirmed using the Roche C501 chemistry analyzer. All samples and test strips were placed at different temperatures and allowed to equilibrate for 2 hours prior to testing. The test pad of each strip was saturated with each sample and allowed to stand for 2 minutes prior to reading the result. A total of 20 replicates were tested for each sample at each temperature.
There were no deviations from the expected results for temperatures between 15 and 40°C. The labeling instructs the user to bring all test items to room temperature for 15 minutes before use.
## Lighting:
The effect of different lighting conditions on the Mission Saliva Alcohol Test was evaluated using alcohol-free saliva and control solutions prepared at each cut off level and at +/-60% of each cut off level and tested under five lighting conditions: daylight, incandescent, fluorescent, mercury vapor, sodium vapor. The negative samples were prepared from a pool of alcohol-free saliva samples collected form five volunteers. An alcohol control solution was used to obtain the desired alcohol concentrations. The solutions with different concentrations were randomly labeled and tested. A total of 20 replicates for each sample were tested by technicians, with 5 replicates per lighting condition. Results are provided in the following table:
| Cutoff | Alcohol % | Light | Result compared to color chart | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | Neg | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.3 |
| | | Daylight | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Mercury Vapor | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
{7}
| Neg | Neg | Incandescent | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Fluorescent | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Sodium Vapor | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| -60% cutoff | 0.008% | Daylight | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Mercury Vapor | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Incandescent | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Fluorescent | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Sodium Vapor | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cutoff | 0.02% | Daylight | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Mercury Vapor | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Incandescent | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Fluorescent | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Sodium Vapor | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| +60% cutoff | 0.032% | Daylight | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Mercury Vapor | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Incandescent | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Fluorescent | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Sodium Vapor | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 |
| -60% cutoff | 0.016% | Daylight | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Mercury Vapor | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Incandescent | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Fluorescent | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Sodium Vapor | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cutoff | 0.04% | Daylight | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Mercury Vapor | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Incandescent | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Fluorescent | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Sodium Vapor | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 0 |
| +60% cutoff | 0.064% | Daylight | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Mercury Vapor | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Incandescent | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Fluorescent | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Sodium Vapor | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 |
| -60% cutoff | 0.032% | Daylight | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Mercury Vapor | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Incandescent | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Fluorescent | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Sodium Vapor | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 |
| Cutoff | 0.08% | Daylight | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 |
| | | Mercury Vapor | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 |
| | | Incandescent | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 |
| | | Fluorescent | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 |
| | | Sodium Vapor | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 |
| | | Daylight | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 |
{8}
| +60% cutoff | 0.128% | Mercury Vapor | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Incandescent | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 |
| | | Fluorescent | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 |
| | | Sodium Vapor | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 |
| -60% cutoff | 0.120% | Daylight | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 |
| | | Mercury Vapor | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 |
| | | Incandescent | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 |
| | | Fluorescent | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 |
| | | Sodium Vapor | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 |
| Cutoff | 0.3% | Daylight | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 |
| | | Mercury Vapor | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 |
| | | Incandescent | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 |
| | | Fluorescent | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 |
| | | Sodium Vapor | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 |
| +60% cutoff | 0.480% | Daylight | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 |
| | | Mercury Vapor | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 |
| | | Incandescent | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 |
| | | Fluorescent | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 |
| | | Sodium Vapor | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 |
The study demonstrates a $100\%$ agreement with the expected results for all lighting conditions except sodium vapor. The labeling contains a limitation to not read the test under streetlights as sodium vapor from streetlights can cause colors to appear differently and cause false results.
The effect of different lighting conditions on the Mission Saliva Alcohol Test was also tested by ten volunteers who performed the test under the five lighting conditions (daylight, incandescent, fluorescent, mercury vapor, sodium vapor) using negative saliva samples and saliva containing $0.008\%$ and $0.032\%$ . The samples were prepared from a pool of negative saliva samples collected from five non-alcoholic volunteers. The volunteers was instructed to abstain form consuming alcohol for 24 hours and not to smoke or consume any food or drink 15 minutes prior to sample collection. The alcohol test solutions were prepared form a stock solution. Each of the volunteers performed the test according to the package insert under each lighting condition. Each volunteer tested each sample using 20 strips for a total of 200 readings for each lighting condition using three lots of test strips. The results of this study demonstrated that the volunteers were able to obtain the correct result using the device under the different lighting conditions.
## Interfering Substances:
The effect of common food and products on the Mission Saliva Alcohol Test Strip was evaluated by selecting 10 volunteers, 5 of which were not alcohol drinkers and 5 who were designated alcohol-drinkers. On the day of testing each participant consumed one piece of chewing gum, mouth wash, one spray
{9}
of breath spray, and cough syrup and then provided saliva samples at 1 minute and 15 minutes after consumption. For the alcohol drinking participants, saliva samples were also collected and tested 15 minutes after alcohol consumption and prior to consumption of the substances listed above. The non-alcohol drinkers collected saliva from themselves and the alcohol drinking participants and performed the test in 5 replicates at each time point. Additionally, the technician also checked that BAC level of each alcohol-drinker using the Alco-Sensor IV at each time point.
Results from these studies demonstrated a 100% correct call rate with the samples from the non-alcohol drinkers and alcohol-drinkers at the 15 minute time point. The results at the <1 min time point demonstrated interference from chewing gum, mouth wash, cough syrup, and breath spray. The labeling states that the user should wait 20 minutes after using over-the-counter products, eating, smoking, or chewing gum before testing. Such items may cause false positive results.
## Volatile Substances:
The effect of volatile substances on the Mission Saliva Alcohol Test Strip was evaluated by spiking negative saliva samples from 5 alcohol-free volunteers with the following volatile substances: acetone, 2-butanol, 1-butanol, glycerol, isopropanol and methanol at an initial concentration of 1.0%. A total of 20 replicates were tested for each substance. Volatile substances at 1.0% resulting in a positive result were further diluted to determine the lowest level at which the correct result is found. The substances were also tested for each cut off level and at +/-60% of each cut off. Substances at 1.0% resulting in a positive result were diluted further tested to determine the lowest level at which a correct result was found. The conclusion from these studies is that the Mission Saliva Alcohol Test Strip will generate positive results in the presence of methanol at 0.01% and 1-butanol at 0.1% whereas substances at the following concentrations, which are included in the labeling, do not interfere with the testing results at each of the cut off levels:
| Substance | Concentration at which no interference was observed |
| --- | --- |
| 1-Butanol | 0.05% |
| Methanol | 0.0001% |
| 2-Butanol | 1.00% |
| Acetone | 1.00% |
| Glycerol | 1.00% |
| Isopropanol | 1.00% |
## f. Assay cut-off:
The device will produce a different color from light blue/green to dark blue at
{10}
the following cut-offs: Negative, 0.02, 0.04, 0.08 and 0.3% BAC.
## 2. Comparison studies:
### a. Method comparison with predicate device:
The sponsor conducted a consumer study comparing the Mission Saliva Alcohol test to results from the Alco-Sensor IV (Intoximeters Inc.) which is an alcohol breath test which is listed on the NHTSA/DOT Conforming Products List for Evidential Breath Testing Devices. After reading the package insert 32 participants, designated as the alcohol-drinkers, and 32 non-alcohol drinkers provided their own saliva to Mission saliva alcohol test strips. The participants designated as the non-alcohol drinker and a technician then performed the test using the alcohol-drinker's saliva. The technician also performed the breath alcohol test using the Alco-Sensor IV. The studies were performed under regular incandescent light with a total of 296 test strips used for the study. The process was repeated approximately every 15 minutes for a total of 4 times, therefore each participant provided 4 saliva samples and 4 breath samples for a total of 128 saliva samples for the study. After the study the participants completed a questionnaire regarding the ease of use and interpretation of results.
The sponsor performed a separate study with 41 non-alcohol drinkers who performed the Mission Saliva Test with their own saliva. Technicians also tested the saliva and breath from the participants using the Mission Saliva Test and Alco-Sensor IV, respectively. In this study 100% of the results were negative using the Mission Saliva Test and correlated with 0.0% results from the Alco-Sensor IV. The results are complied and presented in the following table:
The results obtained by the lay-user compared to the Alco-Sensor IV readings are presented in the following table:
| | Alco-Sensor Concentration (%) | | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Mission Saliva Result | 0.0 | 0.007 to 0.015 | 0.016 to 0.026 | 0.026 to 0.04 | 0.041 to 0.05 | 0.051 to 0.07 | 0.071 to 0.085 | 0.086 to 0.116 |
| Neg | 41 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.02 | 0 | 12 | 18 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.04 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 17 | 11 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.08 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 19 | 7 | 6 |
| 0.3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
### b. Matrix comparison:
{11}
Not Applicable, saliva is the only indicated matrix.
3. Clinical studies:
a. Clinical Sensitivity:
Not Applicable
b. Clinical specificity:
Not Applicable
c. Other clinical supportive data (when a. and b. are not applicable):
Reading Time Study:
The effect of various reading times on the Mission Saliva Alcohol Test Strip were evaluated using negative saliva samples and saliva spiked with control solutions to obtain alcohol concentrations at each cut off and at +/-60% of each cut off. The test pad for each strip was saturated with sample and read at 2, 3, 4, and 5 minutes. A total of 20 replicates were tested for each read time for each sample.
The results support the suggested read time of 2 to 3 minutes in the labeling. The labeling states that the test should not be read after 3 minutes.
4. Clinical cut-off:
Not applicable.
5. Expected values/Reference range:
Not applicable. Alcohol should not be detectable by this device in the saliva of individuals who have not consumed alcohol.
N. Proposed Labeling:
The labeling is sufficient and it satisfies the requirements of 21 CFR Part 809.10.
O. Conclusion:
The submitted information in this premarket notification is complete and supports a substantial equivalence decision.
12
Predicate graph will load when search results are available.
Embedding visualization will load when search results are available.
PDF viewer will load when search results are available.
Loading panels...
Select an item from Submissions
Click any panel, subpart, regulation, product code, or device to see details here.
Section Matches
Results will appear here.
Product Code Matches
Results will appear here.
Special Control Matches
Results will appear here.
Loading collections...
Loading
My Alerts
You will receive email notifications based on the filters and frequency you set for each alert.
Sort by:
Create Alert
Search Filters
Agent Token
Create a read-only bearer token for Claude, ChatGPT, or other agents that can call HTTP APIs.
Copy this now. It will not be shown again.
Connected apps
Apps you authorized through browser sign-in. Disconnecting revokes their access immediately.
Learn the FDA Browser
Two short videos show you everything — or skip straight to the written tutorial if you'd rather read. You can reopen this any time from the Tutorial button in the top bar.
Part 1 — Search, results, and everyday workflows 16 min
Part 2 — Embeddings: the galaxy map 3 min
1. Search: exact and fuzzy
Type a phrase like "coronary artery calcification" into the search box. You get two kinds of results. Exact results match the literal phrase — prefix searches work ("coronary artery calcificati") but suffix searches do not. Fuzzy results match on the meaning and intent of your phrase rather than the exact words, and are sorted by relevance score. Hover over the Exact or Fuzzy badge on any row to see exactly why it matched.
Use the checkboxes above the results to narrow: SaMD keeps only software-only devices, AI / ML keeps only devices with AI.
Exact vs. fuzzy search: what's the difference?
Exact matches on the literal phrase (prefix search works, suffix does not). Fuzzy matches on the meaning and intent of the phrase rather than the exact words. Hover over the badge on any row to see why it matched.
You search "coronary artery calcification" and want only software devices with AI. What two filters do you apply?
Narrow by SaMD (software-only devices), then narrow by AI/ML (devices with AI).
2. The results table
Scroll right in the results table. The intended use is extracted for you — no need to open the PDF. The device story gives a high-level snapshot of what the device does and how it's used. The AI Performance sub-table shows each output name, acceptance criteria, observed values, and development/test dataset descriptions — the same format Innolitics uses for regulatory strategy outputs, and the fastest high-level fingerprint of an AI device. It is AI-generated but has been very reliable in practice.
Where do you find a device's intended use without opening the PDF?
Scroll right in the search results table. The intended use column is extracted for you; no need to dig into the 510(k) summary PDF.
What does the AI Performance sub-table show, and why is it useful?
Output name, acceptance criteria, observed values, development dataset description, and test dataset description. It's the same format we use for regulatory strategy output and Fast 510(k) input, and the fastest high-level fingerprint of an AI device. AI-generated but reliable in practice.
3. Judging fuzzy relevance
Fuzzy results trail off in relevance as you scroll. Use three signals to decide how far down to go: the fuzzy badge explanations, the intended use column, and whether your target output (e.g., Cobb angle) still appears in the AI Performance sub-table. Once it stops appearing, you're past the relevant zone. A top hit with a low score (~0.4) and a stretched explanation is a hint the closest predicates are far away — the project may be headed for De Novo. Note the fuzzy search is a pattern match: it doesn't handle negation ("not") well, and hardware devices can appear — filter by SaMD/AI ML to cut them.
How do you judge how far down fuzzy search results to go?
Use the relevancy signals: the fuzzy badge explanations, the intended use column, and whether the target output (e.g., Cobb angle) still appears in the AI Performance sub-table. Once it stops appearing, results are trailing off in relevancy.
4. Device detail page: chat and citations
Click a device name to open its detail page: device facts on the left, a chat window on the right. Ask something like "Describe the training data". The answer carries little citation bubbles — click one to jump to the highlighted passage in the source PDF, so you can verify every AI answer against the document. There's also a Download PDF button for sharing.
How do you verify an AI chat answer on the device detail page?
Click the citation bubbles to jump to the relevant highlight in the source document.
Reading rule for every project: how many summaries do you read in full?
At least the three most relevant 510(k) or De Novo summaries, in full. After that, use targeted chat questions to confirm your memory quickly. The tool supports this professional habit — it doesn't replace it.
5. Side-by-side comparison
Select multiple rows in the results table (aim for under ~10), then open the PDF Viewer tab. Ask one question — it goes to all selected devices in parallel, each with citations. This is the fastest way to compare and contrast devices: training data, PCCP scope, how they handled adding new scanners, and so on.
What does the side-by-side PDF viewer mode do?
Select multiple devices, open the PDF viewer tab, and ask one question (e.g., "Describe the training data"). It queries all selected devices simultaneously with citations, so you can compare and contrast quickly.
6. Collections
With rows selected, go to the Collections tab and create a labeled collection (e.g., "Cobb Angle Project"). Reload that selection any time — before a client call, pull up the collection and ask questions across all of its devices at once.
How do you save a set of selected devices for later use?
Select the rows, go to the Collections tab, and create a labeled collection (e.g., "Cobb Angle Project"). You can reload the selection anytime and carry it into the PDF viewer and other tabs that support selections.
7. Product codes and the regulations tree
Click a product code in the results to jump to it in the regulations tree — identification text, sibling product codes, and devices you can open in a PDF viewer on the right. Click a regulation number to see its identification, special controls, and related product codes. You can also search by product code or regulation number at the top of the tree. Always read the special controls if any exist for your device — it broadens your search and sharpens pre-kickoff research.
What can you do from the regulations tree view?
Browse product codes and regulation numbers, read the identification text and special controls, browse sibling product codes, open device PDFs on the right, and search by product code or regulation number at the top of the tree.
8. Chart view
Click Show Chart and segment by regulation number (or product code) to see which regulations dominate your result set. Clicking a regulation takes you into the regulations tree. Great for spotting that most matches are, say, hardware laparoscopic devices — a cue to go back and filter.
How do you see which regulations dominate a search result set?
Click "Show Chart" and segment by Regulation Number. Clicking a regulation takes you to the regulations tree.
9. The predicate graph
Open the Predicates tab for a family-tree view of predicate relationships. Click a node to trace its parents and children; selections from search carry over pre-selected. Commonly predicated devices are worth reading — a lot of people predicated them for a reason. The visual lineage is also handy on client calls, e.g. to show how a predicate family evolved and justify why your predicate still holds.
In the predicate graph, why are commonly predicated devices worth reading?
A lot of people predicated them for a reason. Clicking a node traces parents and children, and selections from search carry over pre-selected.
10. Embeddings: the galaxy map
The Embeddings tab plots every matching document in a 2-D "galaxy map" where semantically similar devices cluster together. Hover or click clusters to explore, and let AI label the clusters for you. Embeddings beat product codes for grouping: two devices can carry different product codes (LLZ vs. QIH) yet do the same thing — the embedding captures the meaning of the intended use and device story. This is also exactly how retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) works under the hood, and it makes a great visual on client calls.
Try it yourself
Head to the search page and work through a few of these AI/ML fuzzy searches to build intuition: perivascular fat on CT · aortic valve calcification opportunistic screening on noncontrast CT · breast cancer prediction on digital pathology slides · autism detection · gestational age prediction · a hearing aid that can also detect a pulse · foundation model based analysis of ECG · large language models · penetration test. Watch how the relevance scores, intended use, and AI Performance tables tell you when results stop being meaningful.