4.3 Article

Bronchoalveolar lavage examined by solid phase microextraction, gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and selected ion flow tube mass spectrometry

期刊

JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGICAL METHODS
卷 65, 期 1, 页码 76-86

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.mimet.2005.06.009

关键词

anaerobic fermentation; cyclohexanone; mechanical ventilation; pneumonia; selected ion flow tube mass spectrometry; solid phase microextract ion-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Samples (210 in total) of broncholaveolar lavages (BALs), obtained from patients hospitalized with pneumonia in various departments of two hospitals, were analysed using the method of solid phase microextraction-gas chromatography (SPME-GC) with FID detection. Up to 20% (9% unequivocally, 11% probably) of these samples was found to contain volatile fatty acids (VFAs) in the series from acetic acid to heptanoic acid. Importantly, the presence of these acids indicates the presence of fermenting anaerobic bacteria, which were not detected by the conventional microbiological examination. Other compounds, namely the heptanol and cyclohexanone, were also detected by this method in some samples. Cyclohexanone occurred almost exclusively in samples from patients receiving intensive care with mechanical ventilation, and is suspected to originate from plastic parts of ventilators. Selected representative samples were also analysed using further methods, namely gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) of native and silylated samples, and selected ion flow tube mass spectrometry (SIFT-MS). These methods confirmed the identities of above mentioned compounds, and detected numerous other compounds tentatively identified as various alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, esters and hydrogen cyanide, HCN. Most of these compounds occurred in small amounts and their origin and diagnostic significance remains uncertain, except, that is, for the HCN, which indicates the presence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. (c) 2005 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

4.3
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