Bedoukian   RussellIPM   RussellIPM   Piezoelectric Micro-Sprayer


Home
Animal Taxa
Plant Taxa
Semiochemicals
Floral Compounds
Semiochemical Detail
Semiochemicals & Taxa
Synthesis
Control
Invasive spp.
References

Abstract

Guide

Alphascents
Pherobio
InsectScience
E-Econex
Counterpart-Semiochemicals
Print
Email to a Friend
Kindly Donate for The Pherobase

« Previous Abstract[Tarsal gland of the ticks Ixodes persulcatus and Ixodes ricinus (Ixodidae)]    Next AbstractVolatile compounds from in vitro metabolism of seven Listeria monocytogenes isolates belonging to different clonal complexes »

ERJ Open Res


Title:Volatile organic compound profiles in outlet air from extracorporeal life-support devices differ from breath profiles in critically ill patients
Author(s):Leopold JH; Philipp A; Bein T; Redel A; Gruber M; Schultz MJ; Abu-Hanna A; Brinkman P; Janssen HG; Bos LDJ;
Address:"Dept of Intensive Care Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Dept of Intensive Care, University Hospital Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany. Dept of Intensive Care, Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Bangkok, Thailand. Faculty of Science, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands"
Journal Title:ERJ Open Res
Year:2019
Volume:20190401
Issue:2
Page Number: -
DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00134-2018
ISSN/ISBN:2312-0541 (Print) 2312-0541 (Electronic) 2312-0541 (Linking)
Abstract:"INTRODUCTION: It is highly uncertain whether volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in exhaled breath of critically ill intensive care unit patients are formed in the lung locally, in the air compartment or lung tissue, or elsewhere in the body and transported to the lung via the bloodstream. We compared VOC mixtures in exhaled breath and in air coming from extracorporeal support devices in critically ill patients to address this issue. METHODS: First, we investigated whether it was safe to connect an electronic nose (eNose) or a gas sampling pump to extracorporeal support membranes. Then, breath and air from extracorporeal support devices were collected simultaneously for continuous monitoring of VOC mixtures using an eNose. In addition, samples for gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC-MS) analysis were taken daily at the two measurement sites. RESULTS: 10 critically ill patients were monitored for a median (interquartile range) duration of 73 (72-113) h; in total, we had 887 h of air sampling. The eNose signals of breath correlated moderately with signals of air from the extracorporeal support devices (R(2)=0.25-0.44). After GC-MS analysis, 96 VOCs were found both in breath and air from the extracorporeal support devices; of these, 29 (30%) showed a significant correlation (p<0.05) between the two measurement sites, of which 17 were identified. VOCs that did not correlate were found in a higher concentration in breath than in air from the extracorporeal support devices. CONCLUSION: This study suggests VOC analysis in the extracorporeal circulation is safe, and that VOCs of nonpulmonary origin can be measured in the breath and in the extracorporeal circulation of critically ill patients. For VOCs that did not correlate between the two measurement sites, the breath concentration was higher, suggesting pulmonary production of these molecules in a highly selected population of patients that received extracorporeal support"
Keywords:
Notes:"PubMed-not-MEDLINELeopold, Jan Hendrik Philipp, Alois Bein, Thomas Redel, Andreas Gruber, Michael Schultz, Marcus J Abu-Hanna, Ameen Brinkman, Paul Janssen, Hans-Gerd Bos, Lieuwe D J eng England 2019/04/06 ERJ Open Res. 2019 Apr 1; 5(2):00134-2018. doi: 10.1183/23120541.00134-2018. eCollection 2019 Apr"

 
Back to top
 
Citation: El-Sayed AM 2024. The Pherobase: Database of Pheromones and Semiochemicals. <http://www.pherobase.com>.
© 2003-2024 The Pherobase - Extensive Database of Pheromones and Semiochemicals. Ashraf M. El-Sayed.
Page created on 06-07-2024