4.2 Article

Volatile Organic Compounds in Exhaled Breath in a Healthy Population: Effect of Tobacco Smoking

期刊

ARCHIVOS DE BRONCONEUMOLOGIA
卷 49, 期 11, 页码 457-461

出版社

ELSEVIER ESPANA SLU
DOI: 10.1016/j.arbres.2013.04.004

关键词

Volatile organic compounds; Tobacco smoking; Oxidative stress

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Tobacco smoke is a source of free radicals and reactive oxygen and nitrogen species, which are the main causes of oxidative stress. The analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOC) in exhaled breath is an indirect method of measuring the level of oxidative stress that occurs in the airways caused by tobacco consumption. The aim of this study was to determine whether smoking influences the production of VOC, in a clinically healthy population. Methods: Exhaled breath from 89 healthy volunteers, divided into three groups (non-smokers, ex-smokers and smokers) was analysed. Samples were collected using Bio-VOC (R) devices and transferred to universal desorption tubes. Chemical compounds were analysed by thermal desorption, gas chromatography and mass spectrometry. We analysed hexanal, heptanal, octanal, nonanal, nonanoic acid and propanoic acid, all identified by retention time and mass spectra referenced in the NIST08 mass spectral library; confirmation was carried out using reference standards of the pure chemical compound. Results: These VOC were found in very low concentrations. Only nonanal showed significant quantitative and qualitative statistical differences among the study groups. Nonanal concentration is dependent on smoking, but is independent of the amount of tobacco consumed, age and gender. Conclusions: Nonanal in exhaled breath is associated with tobacco consumption, current or previous. Nonanal is a sub-product of the destruction of the cell membrane, and its finding may be indicative of cell damage in smokers. This result appears in many farmers who smoke. (C) 2013 SEPAR. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L 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

4.2
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