4.5 Article

Headspace sorptive extraction-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry method to measure volatile emissions from human airway cell cultures

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jchromb.2018.05.009

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [U01 EB0220003-01, UG3-OD023365, 1P30ES023513-01A1, T32 HL007013]
  2. NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) [UL1 TR000002]
  3. NIH-National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [1K23HL127185]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The human respiratory tract releases volatile metabolites into exhaled breath that can be utilized for noninvasive health diagnostics. To understand the origin of this metabolic process, our group has previously analyzed the headspace above human epithelial cell cultures using solid phase microextraction-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (SPME-GC-MS). In the present work, we improve our model by employing sorbent-covered magnetic stir bars for headspace sorptive extraction (HSSE). Sorbent-coated stir bar analyte recovery increased by 52 times and captured 97 more compounds than SPME. Our data show that HSSE is preferred over liquid extraction via stir bar sorptive extraction (SBSE), which failed to distinguish volatiles unique to the cell samples compared against media controls. Two different cellular media were also compared, and we found that OptiMEM (R) is preferred for volatile analysis. We optimized HSSE analytical parameters such as extraction time (24 h), desorption temperature (300 degrees C) and desorption time (7 min). Finally, we developed an internal standard for cell culture VOC studies by introducing 842 ng of deuterated decane per 5 mL of cell medium to account for error from extraction, desorption, chromatography and detection. This improved model will serve as a platform for future metabolic cell culture studies to examine changes in epithelial VOCs caused by perturbations such as viral or bacterial infections, opening opportunities for improved, noninvasive pulmonary diagnostics.

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

4.5
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