4.3 Article

Assessment of an e-nose performance for the detection of COVID-19 specific biomarkers

期刊

JOURNAL OF BREATH RESEARCH
卷 17, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/1752-7163/acb9b2

关键词

COVID-19; SARS-COV-2; breath-analysis; electronic-nose; volatile organic compounds; nonanal

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Early, rapid and non-invasive diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is crucial for the prevention and control of COVID-19. This study optimized an experimental protocol using an electronic-nose to identify respiratory imprint in COVID-19 patients. The commercial e-nose device (Cyranose(R)) showed promising analytical performance under various controlled conditions.
Early, rapid and non-invasive diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is needed for the prevention and control of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). COVID-19 mainly affects the respiratory tract and lungs. Therefore, analysis of exhaled breath could be an alternative scalable method for reliable SARS-CoV-2 screening. In the current study, an experimental protocol using an electronic-nose ('e-nose') for attempting to identify a specific respiratory imprint in COVID-19 patients was optimized. Thus the analytical performances of the Cyranose(R), a commercial e-nose device, were characterized under various controlled conditions. In addition, the effect of various experimental conditions on its sensor array response was assessed, including relative humidity, sampling time and flow rate, aiming to select the optimal parameters. A statistical data analysis was applied to e-nose sensor response using common statistical analysis algorithms in an attempt to demonstrate the possibility to detect the presence of low concentrations of spiked acetone and nonanal in the breath samples of a healthy volunteer. Cyranose(R) reveals a possible detection of low concentrations of these two compounds, in particular of 25 ppm nonanal, a possible marker of SARS-CoV-2 in the breath.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据