Cross Platform Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds Using Selected Ion Flow Tube and Proton-Transfer-Reaction Mass Spectrometry
Language English Country United States Media print-electronic
Document type Journal Article
        Grant support
          
              27981 
          
      Cancer Research UK    - United Kingdom
      
      
    PubMed
          
           33831301
           
          
          
    DOI
          
           10.1021/jasms.1c00027
           
          
          
  
    Knihovny.cz E-resources
    
  
              
      
- Keywords
- SIFT-MS, breath analysis, direct injection, thermal desorption: PTR-ToF-MS, volatile organic compound,
- MeSH
- Acetone analysis MeSH
- Butadienes analysis MeSH
- Breath Tests instrumentation methods MeSH
- Adult MeSH
- Hemiterpenes analysis MeSH
- Mass Spectrometry instrumentation methods MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Volatile Organic Compounds analysis MeSH
- Check Tag
- Adult MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Names of Substances
- Acetone MeSH
- Butadienes MeSH
- Hemiterpenes MeSH
- isoprene MeSH Browser
- Volatile Organic Compounds MeSH
Volatile breath metabolites serve as potential disease biomarkers. Online mass spectrometry (MS) presents real-time quantification of breath volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The study aims to assess the relationship between two online analytical mass spectrometry techniques in the quantification of target breath metabolites: selected ion flow tube mass spectrometry (SIFT-MS) and proton-transfer-reaction time-of-flight mass spectrometry (PTR-ToF-MS). The two following techniques were employed: (i) direct injection with bag sampling using SIFT-MS and PTR-ToF-MS and (ii) direct injection and thermal desorption (TD) tube comparison using PTR-ToF-MS. The concentration of abundant breath metabolites, acetone and isoprene, demonstrated a strong positive linear correlation between both mass spectrometry techniques (r = 0.97, r = 0.89, respectively; p < 0.001) and between direct injection and TD tube (r = 0.97, r = 0.92, respectively; p < 0.001) breath sampling techniques. This was reflected for the majority of short chain fatty acids and alcohols tested (r > 0.80, p < 0.001). Analyte concentrations were notably higher with the direct injection of a sampling bag compared to the TD method. All metabolites produced a high degree of agreement in the detection range of VOCs between SIFT-MS and PTR-ToF-MS, with the majority of compounds falling within 95% of the limits of agreement with Bland-Altman analysis. The cross platform analysis of exhaled breath demonstrates strong positive correlation coefficients, linear regression, and agreement in target metabolite detection rates between both breath sampling techniques. The study demonstrates the transferability of using data outputs between SIFT-MS and PTR-ToF-MS. It supports the implementation of a TD platform in multi-site studies for breath biomarker research in order to facilitate sample transport between clinics and the laboratory.
References provided by Crossref.org
