IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0027467.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Two Devices and Two Breathing Patterns for Exhaled Breath Condensate Sampling

Author

Listed:
  • Eva-Maria Hüttmann
  • Timm Greulich
  • Akira Hattesohl
  • Severin Schmid
  • Sarah Noeske
  • Christian Herr
  • Gerrit John
  • Rudolf A Jörres
  • Bernd Müller
  • Claus Vogelmeier
  • Andreas Rembert Koczulla

Abstract

Introduction: Analysis of exhaled breath condensate (EBC) is a noninvasive method to access the epithelial lining fluid of the lungs. Due to standardization problems the method has not entered clinical practice. The aim of the study was to assess the comparability for two commercially available devices in healthy controls. In addition, we assessed different breathing patterns in healthy controls with protein markers to analyze the source of the EBC. Methods: EBC was collected from ten subjects using the RTube and ECoScreen Turbo in a randomized crossover design, twice with every device - once in tidal breathing and once in hyperventilation. EBC conductivity, pH, surfactant protein A, Clara cell secretory protein and total protein were assessed. Bland-Altman plots were constructed to display the influence of different devices or breathing patterns and the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated. The volatile organic compound profile was measured using the electronic nose Cyranose 320. For the analysis of these data, the linear discriminant analysis, the Mahalanobis distances and the cross-validation values (CVV) were calculated. Results: Neither the device nor the breathing pattern significantly altered EBC pH or conductivity. ICCs ranged from 0.61 to 0.92 demonstrating moderate to very good agreement. Protein measurements were greatly influenced by breathing pattern, the device used, and the way in which the results were reported. The electronic nose could distinguish between different breathing patterns and devices, resulting in Mahalanobis distances greater than 2 and CVVs ranging from 64% to 87%. Conclusion: EBC pH and (to a lesser extent) EBC conductivity are stable parameters that are not influenced by either the device or the breathing patterns. Protein measurements remain uncertain due to problems of standardization. We conclude that the influence of the breathing maneuver translates into the necessity to keep the volume of ventilated air constant in further studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Eva-Maria Hüttmann & Timm Greulich & Akira Hattesohl & Severin Schmid & Sarah Noeske & Christian Herr & Gerrit John & Rudolf A Jörres & Bernd Müller & Claus Vogelmeier & Andreas Rembert Koczulla, 2011. "Comparison of Two Devices and Two Breathing Patterns for Exhaled Breath Condensate Sampling," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(11), pages 1-10, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0027467
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0027467
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0027467
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0027467&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0027467?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jan-Philipp Bach & Maike Gold & David Mengel & Akira Hattesohl & Dirk Lubbe & Severin Schmid & Björn Tackenberg & Jürgen Rieke & Sasidhar Maddula & Jörg Ingo Baumbach & Christoph Nell & Tobias Boeselt, 2015. "Measuring Compounds in Exhaled Air to Detect Alzheimer's Disease and Parkinson’s Disease," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-13, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0027467. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.