4.7 Article

Exhaled breath analysis using electronic nose and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry for non-invasive diagnosis of chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus and healthy subjects

期刊

SENSORS AND ACTUATORS B-CHEMICAL
卷 257, 期 -, 页码 178-188

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.snb.2017.10.178

关键词

Breath analysis; Electronic nose; Chemometrics; Gas chromatography quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry; Chronic kidney diseases; Diabetes mellitus

资金

  1. Moulay Ismail University
  2. TROPSENSE under H2020-MSCA-RISE-2014 project [645758]
  3. a 'Ramon y Cajal' fellowship awarded by the Spanish Ministry for Science and Competiveness (MINECO)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Breath Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC's) analysis is a non-invasive tool to assess information about health status. This study aims to investigate exhaled breath of Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD), Diabetes Mellitus (DM) and Healthy Subjects (HS), using electronic nose (e-nose) and Gas Chromatography Quadrupole Time-Of-Flight Mass spectrometry (GC/Q-TOF-MS). Breath samples were collected from 44 volunteers containing 14 females and 30 males. Urine samples were also collected to measure Creatinine Level (CL) by UV-vis Spectrophotometry as reference method. GC/Q-TOF-MS was used to identify volatile organic compounds that were detected in the exhaled breath of CKD, DM, and healthy subjects at different CL concentrations. The e-nose dataset was treated with Principal Component Analysis (PCA), Support Vector Machines (SVMs), Hierarchical Cluster Analysis (HCA) and Partial Least Squares-regression (PLS-regression). PLS model revealed a relationship between breath and urinary CL. The presented results show that e-nose based on chemical gas sensors in combination with pattern recognition methods could constitute the basis of inexpensive and non-invasive diagnosis to distinguish between breath of CKD, DM patients and healthy controls based on breath VOC's analysis. (c) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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