Abstract
Non-invasive disease monitoring on the basis of volatile breath markers is a very attractive but challenging task. Several hundreds of compounds have been detected in exhaled air using modern analytical techniques (e.g. proton-transfer reaction mass spectrometry, gas chromatography-mass spectrometry) and have even been linked to various diseases. However, the biochemical background for most of compounds detected in breath samples has not been elucidated; therefore, the obtained results should be interpreted with care to avoid false correlations. The major aim of this study was to assess the effects of smoking on the composition of exhaled breath. Additionally, the potential origin of breath volatile organic compounds (VOCs) is discussed focusing on diet, environmental exposure and biological pathways based on other’s studies. Profiles of VOCs detected in exhaled breath and inspired air samples of 115 subjects with addition of urine headspace derived from 50 volunteers are presented. Samples were analyzed with GC-MS after preconcentration on multibed sorption tubes in case of breath samples and solid phase micro-extraction (SPME) in the case of urine samples. Altogether 266 compounds were found in exhaled breath of at least 10% of the volunteers. From these, 162 compounds were identified by spectral library match and retention time (based on reference standards). It is shown that the composition of exhaled breath is considerably influenced by exposure to pollution and indoor-air contaminants and particularly by smoking. More than 80 organic compounds were found to be significantly related to smoking, the largest group comprising unsaturated hydrocarbons (29 dienes, 27 alkenes and 3 alkynes). On the basis of the presented results, we suggest that for the future understanding of breath data it will be necessary to carefully investigate the potential biological origin of volatiles, e.g., by means of analysis of tissues, isolated cell lines or other body fluids. In particular, VOCs linked to smoking habit or being the results of human exposure should be considered with care for clinical diagnosis since small changes in their concentration profiles (typically in the pptv–ppbv range) revealing that the outbreak of certain disease might be hampered by already high background.
Introduction
Exhaled breath analysis has the potential to reflect normal and pathologic metabolic processes in a non-invasive and rapid way. Breath sampling can be carried out with patients at any age and as often as it is desirable. The exhaled air analysis may also be used for monitoring of pharmacokinetics of selected pharmaceutics [1] and to assess the environmental exposure to toxic compounds.
A considerable part of breath research is focused on the determination of new marker compounds for different illnesses. The difficulties in these studies begin already with sampling and sample preparation methods which both have to be carefully elaborated to avoid contamination during breath collection and loss of target analytes during sample storage. Much effort is required for proper identification and quantification of compounds. Among available analytical techniques suitable for breath analysis, direct mass spectrometry is very often the method of choice. Although it has a huge advantage of real-time measurement that eliminates the risk of sample loss or contamination, it also has a serious drawback—the fragmentation which can considerably hamper quantification and even identification of detected analytes. The importance of fragmentation (and/or clusterization) under proton-transfer reaction mass spectrometry (PTR-MS) conditions was already discussed in details by others [2–5]. Therefore, the unambiguous identification and quantification (based on calibration of pure reference materials in contrast to mathematical calculations of often unexplained signals) are the significant advantages that make the gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC-MS) a gold standard for the analysis of complex samples and exhaled breath. Currently, the computer comparison of the mass spectrum of an unknown analyte against a reference mass spectral library is used to identify the target compound. The mass spectrum is a characteristic for a given compound; however, it is not unique and other compounds (especially isomers) may have very similar spectra. As a result, spectral library identification of a single peak results in a list of possible compounds. Therefore, in addition to mass spectral library match, the retention times based on measurements of the respective pure standards were used in our study just as in [6–12].
Currently, there are several hundreds of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which can be measured in the exhaled air with, e.g., GC-MS [6, 7, 13–15]. They occur in breath at concentrations in the range of parts per million (ppm) down to parts per trillion (ppt) by volume. The composition of VOCs in breath varies widely from person to person, both qualitatively and quantitatively.
Various studies aim to find markers for diseases such as lung cancer [6, 7, 16–18] or renal disease [19, 20]. The breath samples are screened for compounds to appear at significantly higher (or lower) concentrations in the breath of the selected patient group in comparison with healthy controls. Such a correlation can be only meaningful, if the occurrence of the potential marker as a phenotype results from certain changes in the metabolic processes related to respective disease. In this context, analytes derived from the environment and those linked with smoking habits have to be considered with care. Exposure via the skin, inhalation or intake by food can result in accumulation of pollutants temporary or in a long time-course according to their hydrophilic and lipophilic properties. Incidentally, volatile compounds may not only be interesting as markers for diseases, but also as markers of human presence in the context of urban search and rescue operations (USaR) [21–23].
Although numerous results of breath analyses were published so far, the influence of inspired VOCs’ concentration on the composition of exhaled air remains unknown. Big diversity of breath sampling techniques and, especially, no consensus regarding the data processing leads to inconsistent and sometimes even contradictory results reported by different researchers. Therefore, the scope of this study is to investigate the effect of smoking habits as well as human exposure to indoor-air pollutants on the VOCs’ profile in exhaled breath. In this respect, we demonstrate the large number of smoking-related VOCs found in breath samples. This should help to choose a strategy of data computing, e.g., a correction for inhaled-air and/or elimination of smoking-related VOCs from further interpretation of breath results.
The presented results are based on the measurements of over 100 healthy volunteers and lung cancer patients for whom the reference indoor air samples were collected in parallel with exhaled breath. Results are obtained using GC-MS with preconcentration on multibed sorption tubes. Moreover, VOCs found most often in headspace of urine samples collected from 50 healthy subjects are discussed to investigate whether there are common compounds detected in breath gas and in urine samples. The health status of the candidates is not considered in the data interpretation. In particular, the comparison of VOCs’ profile in respect to lung cancer detection is not the scope of this study. This paper is focused on exogenous factors influencing the constitution of human breath, such as smoking habits and exposure to air pollutants.
Materials and methods
Breath samples
A cohort of 115 candidates (68 non-smokers, 47 active-smokers) was recruited for this study. Demographic data including age, sex, and additionally health and smoking status are summarized in table 1. All individuals gave informed consent of participation. The candidates completed a questionnaire describing their current smoking status (active smokers, non-smokers, ex-smokers) and the time elapsed since last smoking.
Table 1. Demographic data of the volunteers including age, sex, health, smoking and disease status.
LC denotes lung cancer, ENT denotes ears–nose–throat cancer and COPD denotes chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Number of non+ex smokers |
Number of active smoker |
Number of total |
||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sex | Age | All | Healthy | LC | LC + COPD | ENT | Age | All | Healthy | LC | LC + COPD | ENT | Age | All | Healthy | LC | LC + COPD | ENT |
Male | 61.23 (22–87) | 40 | 12 | 7 | 18 | 3 | 55.85 (22–78) | 34 | 10 | 8 | 11 | 5 | 58.76 (22–87) | 74 | 22 | 15 | 29 | 8 |
Female | 54.04 (22–78) | 28 | 16 | 7 | 5 | 0 | 40.69 (21–67) | 13 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 49.8 (21–78) | 41 | 24 | 10 | 6 | 1 |
Total | 58.26 (22–87) | 68 | 28 | 14 | 23 | 3 | 51.66 (21–78) | 47 | 18 | 11 | 12 | 6 | 55.57 (21–87) | 115 | 46 | 25 | 35 | 9 |
All volunteers consumed food not shorter than 1 h before breath sampling. No special dietary regimes were applied, which might be considered as a limitation of the study. The last tobacco smoking was not shorter than 2 h before sampling. The health status of the candidates is not considered in the data interpretation. In particular, a detailed comparison of breath samples derived from lung cancer patients and healthy controls is beyond the scope of this work. The proportion of healthy individuals in both groups compared (i.e. smokers and non-smokers) is the same, being at the level of approximately 40% (see table 1 for details). The samples were collected at different daytimes independent of the time of meals and were processed within 6 h after sampling. The study was approved by the ethics committee of Innsbruck Medical University.
Volunteers were asked to rest for at least 5 min before sampling
The alveolar air samples were collected in a CO2-controlled manner into Tedlar bags (SKC Inc, 84, PA) by means of a special device of our own construction using an IRMA-CO2-sensor (Phasein, Sweden). Ambient air was collected in parallel (also in Tedlar bags). The device was programmed for two different sampling modes based on the CO2 content. Digitally controlled electronic valves switched to the sampling mode if: (a) the absolute level of CO2 in the breath exceeded 3% or (b) the relative level of CO2 in the breath was above 80% of the maximal CO2 level in the previous exhalation. Two breath samples and respective room air were collected in a described way from each subject. Before use, all bags were thoroughly cleaned to remove any residual contaminants by flushing with nitrogen 6.0 (purity of 99.9999%), heating at 85 °C (while filled with N2) for more than 8 h and subsequent secondary flushing.
Sample preparation
Tedlar®bags filled with breath samples were thermostated in an incubator at 40 °C (to avoid condensation) and connected by means of inert transfer lines (made up of Teflon) to a multibed sorption tube. The excessive adsorption of water in sorption tubes was avoided by the dilution of sample flow (20 ml min−1) with additional flow (40 ml min−1) of dry nitrogen 6.0 (additionally purified in a trap filled with Carboxen 1000), while all transfer lines were held at an elevated temperature of 40 °C. The adsorbed volume of breath sample was 500 ml with a total flow of 60 ml min−1 through the multibed sorption tube, governed by means of a mass flow controller (RED-Y, Burde Co. GmbH, Austria). For generation of sample flow, a membrane pump (Vacuubrand, Wertheim, Germany) was placed at the end of sampling system.
Thermal desorption
The sampled analytes were released from sorbents by thermal desorption in a TDS3 unit equipped with a TDSA2 auto sampler (both from Gerstel, Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany). The initial temperature was 30 °C and was increased to 300 °C with a heating rate of 100 °C min−1 (held for 10 min). The flow rate of a carrier gas (splitless mode) through the sorption trap during desorption was 90 ml min−1, while the CIS-4 injector equipped with a glass liner (filled with Carbotrap B) was held in the split mode at the temperature of −90 °C for cryofocusing of the desorbed analytes (liquid nitrogen). For subsequent sample injection into the capillary column, the GC injector was heated with a rate of 12 °C s−1 up to 320 °C while operating in the splitless mode.
GC-MS analyses
The TD-GC-MS analyses were performed on a 6890N gas chromatograph equipped with a mass selective detector 5973N (both from Agilent Technologies, Waldbronn, Germany) with sample injection by means of thermal desorption (described in previous sections). The MS analyses were performed in a full scan mode, with a scan range of 20–200 amu. Ionization of the separated compounds was performed by electron impact ionization at 70 eV. The acquisition of the chromatographic data was performed by means of the Agilent Chemstation Software (GC-MS data analysis from Agilent, Waldbronn, Germany) and the mass spectrum library 2.0 NIST 2008 (Gatesburg, USA) was applied for preliminary identification. The PoraBond Q capillary column 25 m × 0.32 mm × 5 μm (Varian, Palo Alto, CA, USA) was used for chromatographic separation. The oven temperature program was as follows: initial 50 °C held for 5 min, and then ramped 5 °C min−1 up to 140 °C held for 5 min, again ramped 5 °C min−1 to 280 °C and held for 4 min. The constant flow rate of helium as a carrier gas was 1.5 ml min−1.
Urine samples
The urine collection was approved by the Ethics Commission of Innsbruck Medical University. Volunteers’ morning urine (after overnight fasting) was collected into 10 ml plastic urine monovettes (Sarstedt, Germany) immediately after urinating. Prior to the use, the monovettes were thoroughly rinsed with high-purity air at 60 °C for 4 h to remove contaminants, which could distort the sample integrity. Additional effort was made to minimize the storage time of the urine samples in the monovettes to 3 h. After collection, samples were transferred into 10 ml glass vials (9 ml of urine per vial) and frozen at −80 °C.
Creatinine level in urine samples was measured to normalize the VOCs concentrations. For this purpose, 0.1 ml of urine was mixed with 1 ml of elution buffer containing 2 g l−1 EDTA to dissolve urinary sediments. For determination of creatinine in urine samples, high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC; ProStar Pumpe Model 210; Varian Palo Alto, CA and UV detector Jasco UV 975; Jasco Germany) on reversed phase (C18, LiChroCart, Merck) with Sörensen phosphate buffer (e.g., 0.015 M, pH = 6.4) as eluent (flow rate = 1.0 ml min−1) was applied. Creatinine concentrations were measured by the detection of its UV-absorption at 235 nm wavelength. The creatinine concentration ranged from 0.74 to 44.86 mmol l−1 (average 15.38 mmol l−1).
Sample preparation
20 ml amber glass headspace vials (Gerstel, Germany) closed with septa (1.3 mm butyl/PTFE, Macherey-Nagel, Germany) were evacuated for 3 min by a membrane pump (Vacuubrand GmbH + Co KG, Wertheim, Germany). Next, urine sample of 3 ml was added into every vial using a glass syringe. For stabilization of the samples and increasing the detectability of selected substances, urine samples were buffered both with acidic and basic buffers according to their isoelectric point of the compounds. 1 ml of KCL–HCL (PH = 1) or 1 ml of KCL–NaOH (PH = 13) buffer solution was added to the 3 ml urine into the autosampler vials. Pressure in sample vials was balanced to atmospheric pressure by adding of pure nitrogen (99.9999%). Vials were incubated for 45 min at 37 °C for extraction using the SPME fiber (75 μm carboxen/polydimethylsiloxane, Supelco, Canada) in the autosampler (multi-purpose sampler MPS2 XL, Gerstel, Germany) [24].
GC-MS analyses
The GC-MS analysis was carried out using 7890 GC/5975C MSD (Agilent Technologies, Waldbronn, Germany). The injector temperature was set at 290 °C. The constant flow rate of helium as a carrier gas was 1.7 ml min−1. Injection time was 1 min at the splitless mode, and then, a split with 1:50 ratio was used. The PoraBond Q capillary column 25 m × 0.32 mm × 5 μm (Varian, Palo Alto, CA, USA) was used with the following temperature program of the GC oven: initial 90 °C held for 7 min and then ramped 10 °C min−1 up to 140 °C held 7 min, again ramped 15 °C min−1 to 260 °C and held for 12 min.
Conditions of MS detection were the same as for TD-GC-MS analyses described above.
Reagents and standards
All gaseous and liquid reference materials listed in table 2 were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Steinheim, Germany), ChemSampCo (LLC, Trenton, NJ, USA), Acros Organics (Geel, Belgium), Baker (Mallinckrodt Baker BV, Deventer, Netherlands) and Merck (Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany).
Table 2. VOCs detected in human breath (n = 115), room air (n = 115) and urine headspace (n = 50).
Only VOCs found in at least 10% of expired air are shown. Compounds are ordered according to occurrence in breath of ‘non+ex smokers’ group (n = 68) and later in ‘smokers’ group (n = 47). Significantly different peak areas of breath versus peak areas of room air are given in bold italics (p < 0.05 of Kruskal–Wallis test). The column ‘tR confirmed’ specifies if a compound has been identified only by spectral library match (0), or by spectral library match and retention time (1). Table 2 contains altogether 266 compounds, 162 of which have been identified by spectral library match and retention time (based on native standards).
Non + ex smoker |
Smoker |
Non + ex smoker |
Smoker |
||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Compounds | C A S | tR confirmed |
Breath >0 (%) |
Air >0 (%) |
Breath >0 (%) |
Air >0 (%) |
Urine n>0 (%) |
Breath mean |
Room-air mean |
Breath mean |
Room-air mean |
Isoprene | 78–79-5 | 1 | 100 | 65 | 100 | 70 | 94 | 5.5E+08 | 8.7E+06 | 5.9E+08 | I.2E+07 |
Styrene | 100–42-5 | 1 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 2.7E+06 | 3.4E+06 | 4.8E+06 | 3.9E+06 |
n-Hexane | 110–54-3 | 1 | 100 | 97 | 100 | 100 | 96 | 9.0E+06 | 1.7E+06 | 1.7E+07 | 2.1E+07 |
Acrolein | 107–02-8 | 1 | 100 | 100 | 98 | 100 | 86 | 1.2E+06 | 1.5E+06 | 1.3E+06 | 1.5E+06 |
p-Xylene | 106–42-3 | 1 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 96 | 6.4E+06 | 1.1E+07 | 1.2E+07 | 9.3E+06 | |
3-Buten-2-one | 78–94-4 | 1 | 100 | 94 | 100 | 98 | 4 | 2.2E+06 | 1.4E+06 | 2.5E+06 | 1.8E+06 |
Benzaldehyde | 100–52-7 | 1 | 100 | 99 | 98 | 96 | 100 | 4.8E+06 | 6.8E+06 | 4.8E+06 | 6.6E+06 |
Acetone | 67–64-1 | 1 | 100 | 97 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 1.1E+09 | 4.2E+07 | 1.4E+09 | 4.7E+07 |
1,3-Benzothiazole | 95–16-9 | 0 | 100 | 97 | 100 | 100 | 6.7E+06 | 8.1E+06 | 6.6E+06 | 7.5E+06 | |
Furan | 110–00-9 | 1 | 100 | 99 | 96 | 98 | 100 | 5.7E+05 | 5.8E+05 | 4.0E+06 | 5.2E+05 |
Acetaldehyde | 75–07-0 | 1 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 84 | 2.0E+07 | 2.6E+07 | 3.7E+07 | 1.9E+07 |
Toluene | 108–88-3 | 1 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 1.7E+07 | 1.3E+07 | 6.2E+07 | 1.2E+07 |
n-Butane | 106–97-8 | 1 | 99 | 100 | 94 | 100 | 2 | 2.4E+07 | 7.5E+07 | 2.3E+07 | 7.2E+06 |
Methacrolein | 78–85-3 | 1 | 99 | 94 | 96 | 96 | 100 | 1.1E+06 | 7.2E+05 | 1.3E+06 | 7.8E+05 |
Benzene | 71–43-2 | 1 | 99 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 1.1E+07 | 1.2E+07 | 3.6E+07 | 1.2E+07 |
n-Decane | 124–18-5 | 1 | 99 | 97 | 85 | 100 | 56 | 3.4E+06 | 3.9E+06 | 3.3E+06 | 3.4E+06 |
2-Methylfuran | 534–22-5 | 1 | 99 | 100 | 100 | 96 | 100 | 1.9E+06 | 1.5E+06 | 8.8E+06 | 1.4E+06 |
Methyl acetate | 79–20-9 | 1 | 97 | 40 | 98 | 26 | 52 | 3.3E+06 | 7.1E+05 | 5.0E+06 | 1.8E+05 |
o-Xylene | 95–47-6 | 1 | 97 | 97 | 100 | 98 | 1.4E+06 | 2.7E+06 | 2.8E+06 | 2.7E+06 | |
2-Methylbutane | 78–78-4 | 1 | 97 | 88 | 87 | 83 | 2 | 1.0E+07 | 5.2E+06 | 6.9E+06 | 4.7E+06 |
Propanal | 123–38-6 | 1 | 96 | 100 | 91 | 98 | 96 | 2.4E+06 | 9.1E+06 | 3.5E+06 | 6.8E+06 |
Acetonitrile | 75–05-8 | 1 | 96 | 91 | 96 | 94 | 38 | 6.5E+06 | 3.0E+06 | 5.4E+07 | 3.1E+06 |
2-Methylpropane | 75–28-5 | 1 | 96 | 88 | 94 | 89 | 5.7E+06 | 2.9E+06 | 1.0E+07 | 2.7E+06 | |
2,3-Butanedione | 431–03-8 | 1 | 96 | 97 | 94 | 94 | 2 | 1.5E+07 | 1.6E+06 | 1.5E+07 | 1.6E+06 |
D-Limonene | 138–86-3 | 1 | 96 | 94 | 87 | 87 | 96 | 3.5E+07 | 1.7E+07 | 3.3E+07 | 1.0E+07 |
2-Methylpropanal | 78–84-2 | 1 | 96 | 99 | 91 | 100 | 100 | 4.7E+05 | 6.4E+05 | 5.0E+05 | 6.6E+05 |
Methanol | 67–56-1 | 1 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 100 | 3.9E+07 | 1.1E+07 | 4.1E+07 | 1.1E+07 | |
2-Butanone | 78–93-3 | 1 | 94 | 60 | 98 | 83 | 100 | 4.7E+06 | 3.2E+06 | 1.5E+07 | 4.3E+06 |
Ethanol | 64–17-5 | 1 | 94 | 85 | 94 | 91 | 16 | 1.2E+08 | 4.5E+08 | 5.4E+08 | 1.7E+08 |
1(R)-a-Pinene | 7785–70-8 | 1 | 93 | 88 | 87 | 87 | 9.1E+06 | 6.0E+06 | 7.9E+06 | 4.9E+06 | |
Chloromethane | 74–87-3 | 0 | 91 | 96 | 94 | 83 | 7.6E+06 | 1.0E+06 | 6.9E+06 | 8.1E+05 | |
(Dimethylamino)-acetonitrile | 926–64-7 | 1 | 91 | 79 | 74 | 72 | 6.5E+06 | 3.2E+06 | 3.9E+06 | 2.9E+06 | |
3-Octene | 14919–01-8 | 1 | 91 | 94 | 83 | 79 | 28 | 1.0E+06 | 1.0E+06 | 2.2E+06 | 8.7E+05 |
n-Undecane | 1120–21-4 | 1 | 90 | 94 | 91 | 87 | 60 | 1.1E+07 | 1.5E+07 | 9.0E+06 | 1.1E+07 |
n-Pentane | 109–66-0 | 1 | 90 | 93 | 77 | 85 | 100 | 8.3E+06 | 1.3E+07 | 6.1E+06 | 6.2E+06 |
N,N-diethylformamide | 617–84-5 | 1 | 90 | 76 | 87 | 70 | 3.8E+06 | 3.4E+06 | 4.2E+06 | 3.1E+06 | |
Dimethylsulfide | 75–18-3 | 1 | 88 | 18 | 79 | 17 | 98 | 1.6E+07 | 8.5E+04 | 1.6E+07 | 1.0E+05 |
2-Pentanone | 107–87-9 | 1 | 88 | 57 | 81 | 62 | 98 | 2.8E+06 | 4.2E+05 | 3.6E+06 | 5.2E+05 |
Carbonyl sulfide | 463–58-1 | 0 | 87 | 88 | 74 | 81 | 1.2E+06 | 1.6E+06 | 1.1E+06 | 1.4E+06 | |
2-Methylpentane | 107–83-5 | 1 | 87 | 84 | 83 | 85 | 8.9E+06 | 3.0E+06 | 1.1E+07 | 1.3E+07 | |
Methanethiol | 74–93-1 | 1 | 87 | 82 | 98 | 94 | 100 | 6.5E+05 | 5.3E+05 | 6.6E+05 | 5.4E+05 |
Propane | 74–98-6 | 1 | 87 | 96 | 87 | 98 | 7.6E+06 | 5.1E+06 | 9.3E+06 | 3.1E+06 | |
n-Octane | 111–65-9 | 1 | 85 | 72 | 77 | 68 | 18 | 1.5E+06 | 1.0E+06 | 1.8E+06 | 8.2E+05 |
Ethyl benzene | 100–41-4 | 1 | 85 | 96 | 98 | 100 | 1.7E+06 | 2.9E+06 | 5.3E+06 | 2.9E+06 | |
3-Methylthiophene | 616–44-4 | 1 | 85 | 4 | 79 | 21 | 4 | 1.2E+06 | 3.7E+04 | 1.2E+06 | 1.7E+05 |
Propene | 115–07-1 | 1 | 84 | 100 | 94 | 91 | 1.2E+06 | 2.6E+06 | 3.8E+06 | 2.2E+06 | |
2-Methylpropene | 115–11-7 | 1 | 84 | 85 | 87 | 91 | 22 | 2.1E+06 | 1.7E+06 | 4.6E+06 | 2.1E+06 |
2-Nonene | 2216–38-8 | 1 | 81 | 88 | 79 | 81 | 9.3E+05 | 1.3E+06 | 1.7E+06 | 8.9E+05 | |
Ethylene oxide | 75–21-8 | 0 | 81 | 65 | 83 | 87 | 7.8E+06 | 7.5E+06 | 8.7E+06 | 7.5E+06 | |
n-Nonane | 111–84-2 | 1 | 81 | 75 | 72 | 77 | 1.7E+06 | 1.4E+06 | 1.7E+06 | 1.7E+06 | |
2-propanol | 67–63-0 | 1 | 79 | 85 | 85 | 81 | 2.7E+08 | 8.0E+08 | 4.0E+08 | 8.9E+08 | |
4-Methyloctane | 2216–34-4 | 1 | 79 | 85 | 66 | 79 | 2.1E+06 | 2.3E+06 | 3.0E+06 | 4.3E+06 | |
o-Cymene | 527–84-4 | 1 | 78 | 78 | 79 | 83 | 2.9E+06 | 1.9E+06 | 3.6E+06 | 1.3E+06 | |
Pyrrole | 109–97-7 | 1 | 78 | 78 | 64 | 77 | 98 | 4.9E+05 | 4.3E+05 | 4.4E+05 | 5.4E+05 |
Dimethylselenide | 593–79-3 | 0 | 74 | 0 | 23 | 0 | 7.9E+05 | 0 | 2.8E+05 | 0 | |
Methyl propyl sulfide | 3877–15-4 | 1 | 74 | 4 | 70 | 6 | 2 | 5.4E+06 | 4.8E+04 | 8.1E+06 | 8.8E+04 |
2,4-Dimethylheptane | 2213–23-2 | 1 | 74 | 76 | 43 | 55 | 1.7E+06 | 2.2E+06 | 2.4E+06 | 3.1E+06 | |
N-Dodecan | 112–40-3 | 0 | 72 | 72 | 72 | 77 | 1.8E+06 | 2.4E+06 | 2.4E+06 | 3.2E+06 | |
3-Methyl-2(5H)-furanone | 22122–36-7 | 1 | 72 | 47 | 60 | 45 | 1.7E+06 | 4.6E+06 | 1.3E+06 | 1.0E+06 | |
Dimethyl ether | 115–10-6 | 1 | 72 | 76 | 72 | 83 | 1.1E+07 | 1.7E+06 | 1.3E+07 | 2.7E+06 | |
Allylmethylsulfide | 10152–76-8 | 1 | 71 | 0 | 45 | 0 | 10 | 2.1E+06 | 0 | 7.4E+06 | 0 |
6-Methyl-5-heptene-2-one | 110–93-0 | 1 | 69 | 84 | 85 | 85 | 9.0E+06 | 1.5E+07 | 5.2E+06 | 8.1E+06 | |
Benzonitrile | 100–47-0 | 1 | 69 | 71 | 51 | 53 | 100 | 5.8E+05 | 6.9E+05 | 5.5E+05 | 4.6E+05 |
N,N-Dimethylformamide | 68–12-2 | 1 | 68 | 59 | 85 | 74 | 0 | 3.2E+06 | 2.2E+06 | 3.9E+06 | 3.2E+06 |
3-Methylhexane | 589–34-4 | 1 | 66 | 68 | 62 | 64 | 2.3E+06 | 1.8E+06 | 2.9E+06 | 1.3E+06 | |
5-Ethenyldihydro-5-methyl-2(3-H)-Furanone | 1073–11-6 | 0 | 66 | 68 | 83 | 79 | 5.3E+06 | 4.5E+06 | 5.8E+06 | 5.1E+06 | |
Ethyl acetate | 141–78-6 | 1 | 65 | 85 | 62 | 68 | 50 | 9.7E+05 | 1.9E+06 | 7.9E+06 | 1.3E+06 |
n-Heptane | 142–82-5 | 1 | 65 | 65 | 55 | 62 | 2.4E+06 | 1.7E+06 | 6.9E+06 | 1.6E+06 | |
2-Methylhexane | 591–76-4 | 1 | 65 | 56 | 64 | 64 | 1.9E+06 | 1.3E+06 | 2.5E+06 | 1.5E+06 | |
2-Cyclopenten-1-one | 930–30-3 | 1 | 65 | 68 | 64 | 77 | 2.9E+06 | 2.3E+06 | 2.6E+06 | 3.4E+06 | |
(E)-1-(methylthio)-1-propene | 42848–06-6 | 0 | 63 | 1 | 40 | 0 | 3.2E+06 | 1.2E+03 | 3.8E+06 | 0 | |
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene | 108–67-8 | 1 | 63 | 69 | 74 | 79 | 0 | 1.4E+06 | 2.2E+06 | 2.4E+06 | 2.0E+06 |
2-Pentylfuran | 3777–69-3 | 1 | 60 | 71 | 62 | 74 | 90 | 9.3E+05 | 1.2E+06 | 7.0E+05 | 9.4E+05 |
Cyclopentanone | 120–92-3 | 1 | 59 | 68 | 36 | 60 | 88 | 5.1E+05 | 4.4E+05 | 3.0E+05 | 4.8E+05 |
Isothiocyanatocyclohexane | 1122–82-3 | 57 | 50 | 64 | 66 | 92 | 1.8E+07 | 1.5E+07 | 1.7E+07 | 2.1E+07 | |
Cyclohexane | 110–82-7 | 1 | 57 | 47 | 26 | 40 | 2.2E+06 | 1.1E+06 | 1.4E+06 | 1.7E+06 | |
2,4-Dimethylstyrene | 2234–20-0 | 1 | 57 | 74 | 72 | 72 | 1.2E+06 | 1.4E+06 | 1.7E+06 | 1.6E+06 | |
3-Methylbutanal | 590–86-3 | 1 | 56 | 78 | 36 | 79 | 10 | 5.9E+05 | 8.8E+05 | 4.9E+05 | 1.0E+06 |
Eucalyptol | 470–82-6 | 1 | 56 | 19 | 49 | 28 | 6 | 6.4E+06 | 5.8E+05 | 9.2E+06 | 9.6E+05 |
2,2-Dimethylbutane | 75–83-2 | 56 | 49 | 49 | 45 | 8.5E+05 | 6.6E+05 | 6.5E+05 | 7.1E+05 | ||
Gamma – Butyrolactone | 96–48-0 | 1 | 56 | 49 | 26 | 30 | 62 | 8.6E+05 | 7.1E+05 | 4.4E+05 | 2.6E+05 |
Ethyl tert-butyl ether | 637–92-3 | 1 | 54 | 56 | 49 | 47 | 0 | 6.8E+05 | 7.3E+05 | 4.7E+05 | 5.7E+05 |
1-Heptene | 592–76-7 | 1 | 53 | 76 | 83 | 66 | 60 | 4.5E+05 | 6.8E+05 | 3.5E+06 | 6.5E+05 |
2-Methylbutanal | 96–17-3 | 1 | 53 | 56 | 34 | 40 | 90 | 4.8E+05 | 5.2E+05 | 3.2E+05 | 4.3E+05 |
Acetic acid | 64–19-7 | 1 | 51 | 3 | 34 | 0 | 48 | 1.2E+07 | 1.2E+06 | 9.0E+06 | 0 |
Hexanal | 66–25-1 | 1 | 51 | 99 | 57 | 96 | 98 | 5.0E+05 | 2.0E+06 | 7.3E+05 | 2.1E+06 |
(Z)-1-(methylthio)-1-propene | 52195–40-1 | 0 | 50 | 0 | 53 | 0 | 1.1E+06 | 0 | 2.3E+06 | 0 | |
n-Butyl acetate | 123–86-4 | 1 | 50 | 88 | 34 | 98 | 8 | 7.1E+05 | 3.3E+06 | 3.9E+05 | 2.9E+06 |
trans-1,3-Dimethylcyclopentane | 1759–58-6 | 1 | 50 | 41 | 51 | 34 | 6.1E+05 | 4.7E+05 | 1.1E+06 | 4.3E+05 | |
3-Carene | 13466–78-9 | 1 | 49 | 34 | 30 | 36 | 68 | 3.3E+06 | 3.0E+06 | 1.1E+06 | 8.2E+05 |
2,3-Dimethylbutane | 79–29-8 | 1 | 49 | 49 | 40 | 47 | 6.9E+05 | 4.1E+05 | 7.0E+05 | 8.6E+05 | |
Methylisobutylketone | 108–10-1 | 1 | 47 | 60 | 57 | 62 | 94 | 6.2E+05 | 1.1E+06 | 8.3E+05 | 1.1E+06 |
4-Methylpentanenitrile | 542–54-1 | 47 | 51 | 19 | 26 | 1.9E+05 | 2.5E+05 | 9.0E+04 | 7.3E+04 | ||
Alpha-Methylstyrene | 98–83-9 | 1 | 47 | 43 | 32 | 38 | 1.3E+06 | 1.0E+06 | 9.3E+05 | 9.3E+05 | |
Furfural | 98–01-1 | 1 | 47 | 51 | 28 | 28 | 72 | 9.6E+05 | 9.6E+05 | 4.7E+05 | 5.6E+05 |
3-Methylpentane | 96–14-0 | 1 | 46 | 37 | 11 | 40 | 12 | 3.9E+06 | 9.6E+05 | 5.2E+06 | 7.9E+06 |
(Z)-3-Dodecene | 7239–23-8 | 0 | 46 | 60 | 43 | 45 | 8.1E+05 | 1.5E+06 | 8.0E+05 | 8.4E+05 | |
N,N-Dimethylacetamide | 127–19-5 | 1 | 44 | 25 | 55 | 32 | 0 | 1.6E+06 | 1.0E+06 | 2.4E+06 | 1.5E+06 |
2-Methyl-1-butene | 563–46-2 | 1 | 44 | 40 | 66 | 26 | 0 | 6.2E+05 | 4.7E+05 | 5.7E+06 | 3.8E+05 |
Nonanal | 124–19-6 | 1 | 41 | 93 | 38 | 87 | 36 | 9.4E+05 | 3.5E+06 | 7.7E+05 | 3.1E+06 |
Beta-pinen | 127–91-3 | 1 | 40 | 16 | 32 | 23 | 3.2E+06 | 4.4E+05 | 2.0E+06 | 3.9E+05 | |
Tetramethylurea | 632–22-4 | 1 | 40 | 34 | 38 | 38 | 8.5E+05 | 5.9E+05 | 7.9E+05 | 7.1E+05 | |
1,2,4-Trimethylcyclopentane | 2815–58-9 | 40 | 38 | 40 | 53 | 5.9E+05 | 6.4E+05 | 8.2E+05 | 8.0E+05 | ||
Naphthalene | 91–20-3 | 0 | 40 | 43 | 30 | 40 | 7.1E+05 | 1.3E+06 | 7.3E+05 | 1.5E+06 | |
4-Heptanone | 123–19-3 | 1 | 37 | 0 | 19 | 0 | 100 | 3.6E+05 | 0 | 2.0E+05 | 0 |
4-Methylundecane | 2980–69-0 | 37 | 38 | 40 | 38 | 5.8E+06 | 7.0E+06 | 5.7E+06 | 7.9E+06 | ||
2-Methyl-1-pentene | 763–29-1 | 1 | 37 | 35 | 47 | 40 | 5.9E+05 | 4.8E+05 | 3.3E+06 | 5.6E+05 | |
2-Butenal | 123–73-9 | 1 | 37 | 40 | 43 | 53 | 56 | 1.7E+05 | 1.8E+05 | 2.5E+05 | 2.6E+05 |
p-Acetyltoluene | 122–00-9 | 1 | 37 | 24 | 47 | 28 | 2 | 8.3E+05 | 4.8E+05 | 1.2E+06 | 5.7E+05 |
Cyclohexanon | 108–94-1 | 1 | 35 | 29 | 34 | 45 | 14 | 7.4E+05 | 7.1E+05 | 6.0E+05 | 1.4E+06 |
Methylformate | 107–31-3 | 1 | 35 | 53 | 36 | 51 | 4 | 7.9E+04 | 1.0E+05 | 6.9E+04 | 9.5E+04 |
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene | 95–63-6 | 1 | 34 | 50 | 38 | 55 | 6 | 5.3E+05 | 1.7E+06 | 1.1E+06 | 2.8E+06 |
Methyl tert-butyl ether | 1634–04-4 | 1 | 34 | 41 | 4 | 26 | 4.4E+05 | 2.9E+05 | 5.1E+04 | 1.5E+05 | |
2,4-Dimethyl-1-heptene | 19549–87-2 | 1 | 31 | 47 | 17 | 36 | 4.6E+05 | 1.3E+06 | 3.9E+05 | 1.2E+06 | |
Decanal | 112–31-2 | 31 | 60 | 45 | 62 | 1.1E+06 | 4.9E+06 | 1.3E+06 | 3.4E+06 | ||
3-Methyloctane | 2216–33-3 | 1 | 31 | 24 | 13 | 17 | 2.8E+05 | 2.8E+05 | 2.5E+05 | 2.4E+05 | |
4-Methyl-1-pentene | 691–37-2 | 1 | 29 | 1 | 53 | 6 | 2.1E+05 | 2.0E+04 | 7.7E+05 | 8.8E+04 | |
2,3-Dimethylheptane | 3074–71-3 | 1 | 29 | 40 | 30 | 49 | 4.0E+05 | 4.6E+05 | 5.1E+05 | 7.8E+05 | |
4-Methyldecane | 2847–72-5 | 29 | 43 | 36 | 51 | 3.3E+05 | 4.9E+05 | 1.3E+06 | 6.9E+05 | ||
1-Propanol | 71–23-8 | 1 | 28 | 49 | 36 | 53 | 1.5E+07 | 5.2E+08 | 5.3E+07 | 3.7E+08 | |
2-Butene | 107–01-7 | 1 | 28 | 19 | 55 | 17 | 1.8E+05 | 1.1E+05 | 1.1E+06 | 5.7E+04 | |
Pyridine | 110–86-1 | 1 | 28 | 22 | 45 | 26 | 16 | 2.0E+05 | 1.8E+05 | 4.7E+05 | 1.5E+05 |
Propionic acid | 79–09-4 | 1 | 26 | 1 | 26 | 2 | 4 | 5.2E+06 | 4.4E+05 | 4.0E+06 | 3.9E+05 |
2,4-Hexadiene | 592–46-1 | 1 | 26 | 29 | 60 | 36 | 26 | 6.6E+05 | 6.8E+05 | 2.2E+06 | 8.5E+05 |
Acetophenone | 98–86-2 | 1 | 26 | 34 | 30 | 38 | 48 | 8.0E+05 | 1.9E+06 | 7.9E+05 | 1.9E+06 |
1-Acetylcyclohexene | 932–66-1 | 0 | 25 | 22 | 36 | 38 | 4.7E+05 | 3.6E+05 | 4.3E+05 | 4.6E+05 | |
2-Ethyl-1-hexene | 1632–16-2 | 0 | 25 | 28 | 4 | 19 | 5.0E+05 | 4.1E+05 | 4.3E+04 | 3.5E+05 | |
2-Propenenitrile | 107–13-1 | 0 | 25 | 37 | 34 | 43 | 3.6E+05 | 1.7E+05 | 1.1E+06 | 1.4E+05 | |
Pentanal | 110–62-3 | 1 | 24 | 88 | 21 | 85 | 100 | 1.9E+05 | 8.6E+05 | 1.9E+05 | 9.9E+05 |
1-Butene | 106–98-9 | 1 | 24 | 24 | 55 | 53 | 2 | 2.9E+05 | 3.0E+05 | 2.5E+06 | 5.3E+05 |
Acetamide | 60–35-5 | 1 | 24 | 12 | 11 | 9 | 2.1E+05 | 3.6E+05 | 8.4E+04 | 6.2E+04 | |
(Z)-3-Methyl-1,3-pentadiene | 2787–45-3 | 1 | 24 | 19 | 89 | 32 | 2.6E+05 | 1.7E+05 | 1.7E+06 | 3.5E+05 | |
1,3-Dioxolan | 646–06-0 | 1 | 22 | 31 | 9 | 13 | 1.6E+06 | 1.5E+06 | 5.1E+05 | 4.6E+05 | |
(E)-2–Methyl-2-butenal | 497–03-0 | 1 | 21 | 1 | 13 | 6 | 50 | 1.2E+05 | 1.1E+04 | 6.5E+04 | 2.0E+04 |
2-Acetyl-5-methylfuran | 1193–79-9 | 1 | 21 | 6 | 26 | 19 | 1.1E+06 | 1.3E+05 | 1.0E+06 | 5.7E+05 | |
Cyclopentane | 287–92-3 | 1 | 21 | 24 | 13 | 15 | 4.3E+05 | 2.0E+05 | 9.5E+05 | 9.2E+05 | |
4-Methylnonane | 17301–94-9 | 1 | 21 | 18 | 6 | 21 | 1.7E+05 | 1.6E+05 | 7.0E+04 | 3.0E+05 | |
3-Methylfuran | 930–27-8 | 1 | 19 | 3 | 43 | 13 | 100 | 5.4E+05 | 4.0E+04 | 3.6E+06 | 1.4E+05 |
1-Butyne | 107–00-6 | 1 | 19 | 7 | 9 | 4 | 2.3E+05 | 7.7E+04 | 4.1E+05 | 4.7E+04 | |
1,2-Butadiene | 590–19-2 | 0 | 19 | 12 | 28 | 13 | 7.9E+05 | 1.1E+05 | 1.1E+06 | 7.8E+04 | |
Pyrazine | 290–37-9 | 0 | 19 | 18 | 17 | 13 | 0 | 9.5E+04 | 6.2E+04 | 2.5E+05 | 3.4E+05 |
1,3-Cyclopentadiene | 542–92-7 | 0 | 19 | 22 | 79 | 17 | 2.0E+05 | 6.8E+04 | 5.7E+06 | 3.5E+04 | |
3-Methyl-2-butenal | 107–86-8 | 1 | 18 | 3 | 15 | 11 | 76 | 2.5E+05 | 2.4E+04 | 2.4E+05 | 9.3E+04 |
Propanenitrile | 107–12-0 | 0 | 18 | 41 | 15 | 15 | 2.0E+05 | 6.5E+05 | 1.5E+05 | 2.4E+05 | |
(E)-2-methyl-1,3-Pentadiene | 926–54-5 | 0 | 18 | 16 | 66 | 6 | 2.3E+05 | 3.0E+05 | 1.2E+06 | 3.6E+04 | |
2,5-Dimethylpyrrole | 625–84-3 | 0 | 16 | 4 | 23 | 17 | 0 | 3.2E+05 | 8.4E+03 | 1.9E+05 | 2.6E+05 |
Carbon disulfide | 75–15-0 | 1 | 16 | 63 | 9 | 68 | 100 | 3.0E+07 | 5.5E+06 | 4.3E+06 | 7.1E+06 |
1-Hexene | 592–41-6 | 1 | 16 | 28 | 26 | 23 | 4 | 2.1E+05 | 4.2E+05 | 2.3E+06 | 2.8E+05 |
Tetrachloroethylene | 127–18-4 | 1 | 16 | 9 | 9 | 6 | 8.7E+05 | 3.0E+05 | 1.9E+05 | 2.0E+05 | |
1,2,4-Trimethylcyclohexane | 2234–75-5 | 0 | 16 | 13 | 6 | 6 | 1.5E+05 | 1.1E+05 | 3.9E+04 | 5.6E+04 | |
1,3-Pentadiene | 504–60-9 | 1 | 16 | 16 | 55 | 17 | 16 | 1.1E+05 | 3.7E+04 | 1.7E+06 | 3.2E+04 |
Beta-terpinen | 99–84-3 | 0 | 15 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3.9E+05 | 6.2E+04 | 1.4E+05 | 6.0E+04 | |
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene | 526–73-8 | 1 | 15 | 46 | 26 | 51 | 74 | 2.5E+05 | 7.7E+05 | 3.7E+05 | 1.0E+06 |
Formaldehyde | 50–00-0 | 1 | 15 | 18 | 4 | 6 | 7.9E+06 | 1.4E+07 | 1.2E+06 | 4.7E+06 | |
Cymene | 99–87-6 | 1 | 15 | 21 | 19 | 21 | 88 | 2.7E+05 | 3.2E+05 | 8.9E+05 | 5.6E+05 |
Beta-phellandrene | 555–10-2 | 0 | 15 | 9 | 21 | 9 | 5.0E+05 | 2.2E+05 | 9.2E+05 | 1.4E+05 | |
Butanal | 123–72-8 | 1 | 13 | 69 | 13 | 51 | 0 | 8.6E+04 | 3.5E+05 | 2.0E+04 | 4.2E+05 |
4-Methylheptane | 589–53-7 | 1 | 13 | 35 | 4 | 40 | 1.8E+05 | 5.4E+05 | 2.0E+05 | 6.9E+05 | |
Octanal | 124–13-0 | 1 | 13 | 71 | 15 | 72 | 76 | 2.3E+05 | 2.8E+06 | 2.3E+05 | 2.5E+06 |
1-Ethyl-5-methylcyclopentene | 97797–57-4 | 0 | 13 | 13 | 21 | 19 | 1.9E+05 | 2.3E+05 | 5.0E+05 | 3.6E+05 | |
5-Methyl-3-heptyne | 61228–09-9 | 0 | 13 | 18 | 6 | 9 | 9.4E+04 | 8.2E+04 | 5.2E+04 | 3.7E+04 | |
Gamma-terpinen | 99–85-4 | 0 | 13 | 13 | 26 | 21 | 9.4E+05 | 1.3E+06 | 2.2E+06 | 3.1E+06 | |
2-Methylnonane | 871–83-0 | 0 | 13 | 13 | 2 | 9 | 1.1E+05 | 1.4E+05 | 5.6E+03 | 7.1E+04 | |
1-Butenylbenzene | 824–90-8 | 0 | 13 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 3.5E+05 | 4.4E+05 | 6.9E+03 | 3.3E+04 | |
2-Heptanone | 110–43-0 | 1 | 13 | 10 | 19 | 15 | 100 | 8.3E+04 | 6.2E+04 | 1.3E+05 | 1.6E+05 |
Isocyanatocyclohexane | 3173–53-3 | 0 | 12 | 7 | 13 | 13 | 1.6E+05 | 1.5E+05 | 2.2E+05 | 1.4E+05 | |
Methenamine | 100–97-0 | 0 | 12 | 10 | 4 | 4 | 2.2E+07 | 1.8E+07 | 2.7E+06 | 2.7E+06 | |
1,1,3,3-Tetraethylurea | 1187–03-7 | 1 | 12 | 6 | 6 | 9 | 1.4E+05 | 3.5E+04 | 1.0E+05 | 1.0E+05 | |
3,3-Dimethylhexane | 563–16-6 | 0 | 12 | 12 | 9 | 4 | 1.3E+05 | 8.8E+04 | 8.8E+04 | 2.6E+04 | |
4-Ethyl-m-xylene | 874–41-9 | 0 | 12 | 19 | 17 | 21 | 2.9E+05 | 2.1E+05 | 3.3E+05 | 4.2E+05 | |
2,3,5-Trimethyl-1H-pyrrole | 2199–41-9 | 0 | 12 | 4 | 19 | 15 | 1.0E+05 | 2.5E+04 | 1.2E+05 | 2.1E+05 | |
2-Methyl-2-butene | 513–35-9 | 1 | 12 | 13 | 43 | 9 | 6 | 2.1E+05 | 9.1E+04 | 5.8E+06 | 6.9E+04 |
Cyclopentene | 142–29-0 | 1 | 10 | 41 | 23 | 43 | 2 | 5.5E+05 | 2.2E+05 | 2.3E+07 | 1.9E+05 |
Isobutyl acetate | 110–19-0 | 0 | 10 | 51 | 2 | 51 | 8.6E+04 | 7.5E+05 | 7.1E+04 | 5.5E+05 | |
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane | 565–75-3 | 1 | 10 | 13 | 9 | 13 | 2.6E+05 | 2.2E+05 | 1.8E+05 | 1.6E+05 | |
3-Ethyltoluene | 620–14-4 | 1 | 10 | 15 | 15 | 21 | 2.3E+05 | 5.8E+05 | 5.2E+05 | 9.2E+05 | |
2,6-Dimethyldecane | 13150–81-7 | 0 | 10 | 9 | 23 | 21 | 1.3E+06 | 1.6E+06 | 4.7E+06 | 6.9E+06 | |
1,3-Cyclohexadiene | 592–57-4 | 1 | 10 | 9 | 81 | 2 | 2 | 6.0E+04 | 3.5E+04 | 1.9E+06 | 5.3E+03 |
Pyrimidine | 289–95-2 | 0 | 9 | 1 | 11 | 4 | 0 | 4.7E+04 | 3.2E+03 | 1.3E+05 | 1.9E+04 |
1-Ethyl-4-methylcyclohexane | 3728–56-1 | 0 | 9 | 9 | 13 | 11 | 3.0E+04 | 3.9E+04 | 6.6E+04 | 6.4E+04 | |
2,3,5-Trimethylhexane | 1069–53-0 | 1 | 9 | 9 | 11 | 17 | 1.5E+05 | 6.7E+04 | 1.5E+05 | 3.0E+05 | |
2,5-Dimethylfuran | 625–86-5 | 1 | 9 | 16 | 81 | 13 | 54 | 1.2E+05 | 7.9E+04 | 6.3E+06 | 5.4E+04 |
2,6-Dimethylnonane | 17302–28-2 | 0 | 9 | 24 | 19 | 23 | 1.1E+05 | 3.1E+05 | 2.2E+05 | 1.9E+05 | |
2-Methylthiophene | 554–14-3 | 1 | 9 | 4 | 13 | 6 | 92 | 2.1E+05 | 4.1E+04 | 1.9E+05 | 6.2E+04 |
Methylcyclopentane | 96–37-7 | 1 | 7 | 9 | 19 | 13 | 90 | 2.4E+06 | 1.4E+05 | 3.3E+06 | 3.6E+06 |
(E)-3–Dodecene | 7206–14-6 | 0 | 7 | 3 | 19 | 21 | 6.3E+04 | 2.9E+04 | 4.2E+05 | 3.0E+05 | |
5,6-Dimethyldecane | 1636–43-7 | 0 | 7 | 12 | 17 | 17 | 1.2E+05 | 1.4E+05 | 2.6E+05 | 3.1E+05 | |
2-Ethyl–5-methylfuran | 1703–52-2 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 51 | 0 | 96 | 6.0E+04 | 0 | 8.0E+05 | 0 |
O-Ethyltoluene | 611–14-3 | 0 | 6 | 9 | 40 | 43 | 1.6E+05 | 2.7E+05 | 9.0E+05 | 1.3E+06 | |
Phenol | 108–95-2 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 21 | 17 | 4.4E+05 | 1.3E+06 | 2.2E+06 | 2.0E+06 | |
1,3-Butadiene | 106–99-0 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 15 | 6 | 9.2E+04 | 1.4E+04 | 1.4E+06 | 6.5E+04 | |
1,4-Divinylbenzene | 105–06-6 | 0 | 6 | 3 | 13 | 6 | 2.2E+04 | 9.1E+03 | 7.1E+04 | 5.1E+04 | |
2,6-Dimethyloctane | 2051–30-1 | 1 | 6 | 4 | 11 | 9 | 1.1E+05 | 3.2E+04 | 1.3E+05 | 1.1E+05 | |
D-Limonene | 5989–27-5 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 13 | 13 | 9.3E+05 | 3.0E+05 | 5.2E+06 | 4.1E+06 | |
Alpha-Pinene | 80–56-8 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 13 | 9 | 2.0E+05 | 3.1E+05 | 9.9E+05 | 3.6E+05 | |
2-Methylstyrene | 611–15-4 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 13 | 17 | 8.9E+04 | 4.9E+04 | 3.1E+05 | 2.4E+05 | |
(E)-2-Nonene | 6434–78-2 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 13 | 13 | 4.2E+04 | 5.1E+04 | 2.4E+05 | 1.1E+05 | |
1-Undecene | 821–95-4 | 0 | 4 | 7 | 13 | 6 | 4.1E+04 | 8.1E+04 | 1.8E+05 | 7.2E+04 | |
2-Ethyl-1-hexanol | 104–76-7 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 11 | 11 | 4.5E+05 | 6.3E+05 | 1.4E+06 | 2.6E+06 | |
2-Methyl-2-propanol | 75–65-0 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 11 | 13 | 3.6E+04 | 2.4E+04 | 2.9E+05 | 5.1E+05 | |
3-Methyl-1-cyclopentene | 1120–62-3 | 0 | 4 | 9 | 47 | 0 | 2.7E+04 | 5.7E+04 | 4.5E+05 | 0 | |
2-Hexanone | 591–78-6 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 23 | 9 | 4 | 9.3E+03 | 0 | 2.2E+05 | 3.7E+04 |
2-Methylheptane | 592–27-8 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 15 | 13 | 1.3E+05 | 1.3E+05 | 5.2E+05 | 2.1E+05 | |
(E)-2-Butene | 624–64-6 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 13 | 4 | 8.4E+03 | 1.6E+04 | 5.8E+05 | 8.3E+04 | |
2,4-Dimethylhexane | 589–43-5 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 13 | 9 | 1.1E+05 | 7.8E+04 | 2.8E+05 | 7.8E+04 | |
2-Pentene | 109–68-2 | 1 | 3 | 15 | 40 | 13 | 16 | 3.6E+04 | 8.4E+04 | 3.1E+06 | 7.3E+04 |
(E)-2-Pentene | 646–04-8 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 19 | 11 | 2 | 1.1E+05 | 7.1E+04 | 1.5E+06 | 1.6E+05 |
1-Octene | 111–66-0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 15 | 13 | 2 | 3.7E+04 | 4.5E+04 | 2.2E+05 | 1.4E+05 |
(Z)-2-Pentene | 627–20-3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 9 | 2 | 8.1E+04 | 3.1E+04 | 1.3E+06 | 7.0E+04 |
3-Methyl-1-butene | 563–45-1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 28 | 2 | 2 | 1.2E+04 | 1.7E+04 | 6.5E+05 | 4.5E+03 |
1-Propyne | 74–99-7 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 28 | 0 | 1.0E+04 | 1.2E+03 | 1.1E+06 | 0 | |
2-Hexene | 592–43-8 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 23 | 0 | 1.1E+04 | 0 | 3.6E+05 | 0 | |
Ethyl methyl sulfide | 624–89-5 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 17 | 0 | 58 | 1.4E+04 | 0 | 6.7E+04 | 0 |
3-Methyl-1-hexene | 3404–61-3 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 2.1E+04 | 2.1E+03 | 9.5E+04 | 0 | |
2-phenoxyethanol | 122–99-6 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 9 | 1.1E+04 | 1.9E+04 | 1.8E+05 | 1.4E+05 | |
2-Ethylfuran | 3208–16-0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 55 | 2 | 2.3E+03 | 1.9E+04 | 4.4E+05 | 4.9E+03 | |
1-Methyl-1,3-cyclopentadiene | 96–39-9 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 51 | 0 | 2.3E+04 | 1.6E+04 | 2.4E+06 | 0 | |
2,4-Dimethylfuran | 3710–43-8 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 45 | 0 | 100 | 6.2E+03 | 0 | 6.2E+05 | 0 |
2,3,5-Trimethylfuran | 10504–04-8 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 43 | 0 | 98 | 1.1E+04 | 0 | 4.5E+05 | 0 |
1-Methyl-1-cyclopentene | 693–89-0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 21 | 0 | 1.4E+04 | 1.2E+03 | 2.7E+05 | 0 | |
3-Penten-2-one | 625–33-2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 17 | 9 | 100 | 5.7E+03 | 0 | 1.9E+05 | 2.8E+04 |
3-Methyl-1,4-pentadiene | 1115–08-8 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 17 | 0 | 4.9E+03 | 0 | 1.2E+05 | 0 | |
Trans-p-Menth-2-ene | 1124–26-1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 17 | 2 | 1.1E+04 | 0 | 2.7E+06 | 1.7E+05 | |
1-Methyl-1,4-cyclohexadiene | 4313–57-9 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 17 | 0 | 4.8E+04 | 0 | 4.9E+05 | 0 | |
Methylenecyclopentane | 1528–30-9 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 15 | 0 | 6.1E+03 | 8.1E+03 | 2.8E+05 | 0 | |
1-Methylpyrrole | 96–54-8 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 13 | 9 | 0 | 1.3E+04 | 1.8E+04 | 1.9E+05 | 6.0E+04 |
5,5-Dimethyl-1,3-cyclopentadiene | 4125–18-2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 13 | 2 | 1.4E+04 | 0 | 5.0E+05 | 7.9E+03 | |
2-Methylundecane | 7045–71-8 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 11 | 13 | 9.5E+03 | 4.1E+04 | 8.9E+05 | 2.2E+06 | |
3,6-Dimethyldecane | 17312–53-7 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 17 | 2.2E+04 | 6.8E+04 | 3.8E+06 | 5.2E+06 | |
2,3-Dimethyl-1-butene | 563–78-0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 5.2E+03 | 0 | 6.0E+05 | 0 | |
(Z)-3-methyl-2-Pentene | 922–62-3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 1.9E+04 | 0 | 2.3E+05 | 0 | |
2,6-Dimethyl-1,5-heptadiene | 6709–39-3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.6E+05 | 0 | |
(Z)-1,3-Pentadiene | 1574–41-0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 36 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.0E+05 | 0 | |
2-Butyne | 503–17-3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 34 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.6E+05 | 0 | |
4-Methyl-1,3-pentadiene | 926–56-7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 28 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 7.3E+05 | 8.6E+04 | |
2,4-Dimethyl-1,3-pentadiene | 1000–86-8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 28 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5.0E+05 | 0 | |
2,3-Dimethyl-2-butene | 563–79-1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.5E+05 | 0 |
2,3-Dimethyl-1,3-pentadiene | 1113–56-0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.8E+05 | 0 | |
5-Methyl-1,3-cyclopentadiene | 96–38-8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.3E+06 | 0 | |
(E)-1,3-Pentadiene | 2004–70-8 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 8.6E+05 | 4.1E+04 | |
(6Z)-2,6-Dimethyl-2,6-octadiene | 2492–22-0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9.2E+05 | 0 | |
(6E)-2,6-Dimethyl-2,6-octadiene | 2609–23-6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.3E+05 | 0 | |
1,4-Pentadiene | 591–93-5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 17 | 2 | 0 | 4.8E+03 | 7.1E+04 | 2.6E+05 | |
3-Hexanone | 589–38-8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2.0E+05 | 0 |
1-Buten-3-yne | 689–97-4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.2E+05 | 0 | |
2-Vinylfuran | 1487–18-9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.1E+05 | 0 | |
(Z)-2-Butene | 590–18-1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4.6E+05 | 5.8E+03 | |
3-Methyl-1-pentene | 760–20-3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3.7E+05 | 8.4E+03 | |
2,5-Dimethyl-2-hexene | 3404–78-2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.1E+05 | 0 | |
6-Methyl-1,6-heptadiene | 13643–06-6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.3E+05 | 0 | |
4,4-Dimethyl-1-cyclopentene | 19037–72-0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.6E+05 | 0 | |
2,5,5-Trimethyl-2,6-heptadiene | 35387–63-4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.9E+05 | 0 | |
2,7-Dimethyl-1,6-octadiene | 40195–09-3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.5E+05 | 0 | |
2-Heptene | 592–77-8 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 13 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 3.4E+03 | 1.7E+05 | 9.2E+03 |
(2E)-3-Methyl-2-pentene | 922–61-2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 7.9E+05 | 2.0E+04 | |
1,3-Cycloheptadiene | 4054–38-0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.8E+05 | 0 | |
(4E)-1,4-Hexadiene | 7319–00-8 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4.8E+05 | 9.1E+03 | |
Limonene | 7705–14-8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.9E+05 | 0 | |
(4E)-4-Methyl-1,4-heptadiene | 13857–55-1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.4E+05 | 0 | |
p-Menth-3-ene | 500–00-5 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 11 | 4 | 0 | 1.8E+05 | 5.7E+06 | 6.5E+05 | |
2-Octene | 111–67-1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 9.6E+04 | 0 |
2-Cyano-1-propene | 126–98-7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5.1E+04 | 0 | |
(E)-3-Methyl-2-pentene | 616–12-6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8.3E+05 | 0 | |
(4E)-2-Methyl-1,4-hexadiene | 1119–14-8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.0E+05 | 0 | |
2,4-Hexadiene | 5194–51-4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.7E+05 | 0 |
6-Methyl-1,5-heptadiene | 7270–50-0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.6E+05 | 0 |
For determination of the retention time of compounds detected in room air and breath samples, preparation of gaseous standards was performed by evaporation of liquid substances in glass bulbs. Each bulb (Supelco, Bellefonte, PA, USA) was cleaned with methanol (Sigma-Aldrich, Steinheim, Germany), dried at 85 °C for at least 20 h, purged with clean nitrogen for at least 20 min and subsequently evacuated using a vacuum pump (Vacuubrand, Wertheim, Germany) for 30 min. Liquid standards (1–3 μl according to the desired concentration) were injected through a septum, using a GC syringe. After the complete evaporation of standards, the glass bulb was filled with nitrogen of purity 6.0 in order to equalize the pressure (to the ambient pressure). Then, the appropriate volume (μl) of vapor mixture was transferred using a gas tight syringe (Hamilton, Bonaduz, Switzerland) into Tedlar® bags (SKC 232 Series, 84, PA, USA, SKC 232 Series) previously filled with 1.5 l of nitrogen 6.0 additionally purified on carbon molecular sieves (Carboxen 1000).
Data evaluation
Integration of chromatograms was performed by means of MS Data Analysis software from Agilent Chemstation (Agilent Technologies, Waldbronn, Germany) and a mass spectra library NIST 2008 (Gatesburg, USA) was used for peak identification. Standard functions provided by MATLAB statistic toolbox (The Mathworks, Natick, MA) were used to compare groups.
The Kruskal–Wallis test was applied as a non-parametric test of differences. This test was selected because it does not require the groups to be normally distributed and is more stable to outliers. To investigate the relation of breath-VOC profiles to the smoking, a simple classifier was calculated for each substance using linear regression. Practically, this means a value of a peak area selected as threshold below which samples are classified to the first group (non-smokers), all above to the second (smokers). A classifier was constructed to reach the maximum likelihood of the classification. A typical benchmark for such a classification are sensitivity (in our case: identified smoker/total number of smoker) and specificity (in our case: identified non+ex-smoker/total number of non+ex-smoker).
Results
Among 748 compounds found (at least once) in expired air samples derived from 115 subjects in this study, 266 VOCs were found in more than 10% of all cases, regardless of smoking status. Among these 266 VOCs, altogether 162 compounds were unambiguously identified by spectral library match and additional confirmation of retention time (based on reference materials).
Analytes detected in breath and room air, as well as in the headspace of urine samples are given in table 2 (arranged according to descending appearance in breath samples for non-smokers). The here-proposed comparison of breath and urine data may help to confirm that VOCs found in both of these groups are blood-borne.
The obtained results show that VOCs with high appearance in expired air were also often found in indoor air samples. Apart from isoprene, several hydrocarbons were found in urine, but considering their low-concentration levels and generally low solubility of hydrocarbons in aqueous solutions, it might be that a considerable loss of these compounds during urine sampling and preparation took place. On the other hand, monovettes used for urine sampling and storage may be an artificial sources of hydrocarbons resulting in the high occurrence of these substances in the measured samples.
As many as 86 substances detected in exhaled breath were found to be significantly related (p < 0.05 of the Kruskal–Wallis test) to smoking habits (table 3). For a better clarification, the results of breath, indoor air and urine analyses are ordered in regard to chemical class of analytes. Mean peak areas corresponding to the level of certain substances in expired and inspired air are plotted for the most prominent groups related to smoking habit, such as hydrocarbons, aromatic compounds and volatile nitrogen-containing compounds (VNCs). Part of them, especially furans, ketones, VNCs and some aromatic hydrocarbons could also be detected in urine mostly with higher peak areas for smokers than for non-smokers. Importantly, in several cases (e.g. benzene, toluene), the same compounds were detected in exhaled air of both non- and active-smokers’ groups, while no significant difference between indoor air and breath level for non-smokers could be found.
Table 3. VOCs significantly related to smoking habit (p < 0.05 of Kruskal–Wallis test) detected in exhaled breath, room air and urine.
Only VOCs with occurrence >10% in expired air of at least one group (‘smo’ or ‘non+ex’) are shown. Peak areas higher for smokers are given in bold. Sensitivity and specificity for the compounds are also included for breath and urine data, respectively. Within each chemical class, compounds are ordered in ascending p-value of the Kruskal–Wallis test. Numbers within each chemical class are consistent with figures.
‘smo’ versus ‘non+ex’ |
Mean peak area in breath |
Non + ex-smoker, n = 68 |
Smoker, n = 47 |
‘smo’ versus ‘non+ex |
Mean peak area in urine |
Non + ex-smoker, n = 36 |
Smoker, n = 14 |
||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Class | Nr. | Compounds | CAS | breath p K-W |
Smokers | Non+Ex | breath >0 (%) |
air >0 (%) |
breath >0 (%) |
air >0 (%) |
Sens. | Spec. | urine p K-W |
Non+Ex | Smokers | urine >0 (%) |
urine >0 (%) |
Sens. | Spec. |
Aromatics | Ar-1 | Toluene | 108–88-3 | <0.001 | 6.20E+07 | 1.70E+07 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 0.51 | 0.93 | 0.031 | 3.05E+06 | 3.55E+06 | 100 | 100 | 0.55 | 0.74 |
Ar-2 | Benzene | 71–43-2 | <0.001 | 3.60E+07 | 1.10E+07 | 99 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 0.52 | 1.00 | <0.001 | 9.40E+05 | 1.09E+07 | 100 | 100 | 0.61 | 1.00 | |
Ar-3 | Ethyl benzene | 100–41-4 | <0.001 | 5.30E+06 | 1.70E+06 | 85 | 96 | 98 | 100 | 0.45 | 0.94 | ||||||||
Ar-4 | o-Xylene | 95–47-6 | <0.001 | 2.80E+06 | 1.40E+06 | 97 | 97 | 100 | 98 | 0.54 | 0.85 | ||||||||
Ar-5 | o-Ethyl-toluene | 611–14-3 | <0.001 | 9.00E+05 | 1.60E+05 | 6 | 9 | 40 | 43 | 0.40 | 0.94 | ||||||||
Ar-6 | p-Xylene | 106–42-3 | <0.001 | 1.20E+07 | 6.40E+06 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 96 | 0.50 | 0.86 | ||||||||
Ar-7 | Styrene | 100–42-5 | <0.001 | 4.80E+06 | 2.70E+06 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 0.42 | 0.81 | 0.007 | 1.35E+06 | 1.77E+06 | 100 | 100 | 0.58 | 0.66 | |
Ar-8 | Phenol | 108–95-2 | 0.011 | 2.20E+06 | 4.40E+05 | 6 | 6 | 21 | 17 | 0.17 | 0.94 | ||||||||
Ar-9 | 2-Phen-oxyethanol | 122–99-6 | 0.029 | 1.80E+05 | 1.10E+04 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 9 | 0.10 | 0.99 | ||||||||
Ar-10 | 1,3,5-Trimethyl- benzene |
108–67-8 | 0.033 | 2.40E+06 | 1.40E+06 | 63 | 69 | 74 | 79 | 0.46 | 0.73 | ||||||||
Furans | F-1 | 2,5-Dimethyl-furan | 625–86-5 | <0.001 | 6.30E+06 | 1.20E+05 | 9 | 16 | 81 | 13 | 0.49 | 0.99 | 0.006 | 1.07E+07 | 3.19E+07 | 50 | 71 | 0.64 | 0.83 |
F-2 | 2-Ethylfuran | 3208–16-0 | <0.001 | 4.40E+05 | 2.30E+03 | 1 | 4 | 55 | 2 | 0.45 | 1.00 | ||||||||
F-3 | 2-Methyl-furan | 534–22-5 | <0.001 | 8.80E+06 | 1.90E+06 | 99 | 100 | 100 | 96 | 0.51 | 0.96 | 0.092 | 4.05E+06 | 5.15E+06 | 100 | 100 | 0.60 | 0.74 | |
F-4 | 2,4-Dimethyl-furan | 3710–43-8 | <0.001 | 6.20E+05 | 6.20E+03 | 1 | 0 | 45 | 0 | 0.42 | 0.99 | <0.001 | 2.33E+06 | 4.29E+06 | 100 | 100 | 0.54 | 0.90 | |
F-5 | 2-Ethyl-5-methyl- furan |
1703–52-2 | <0.001 | 8.00E+05 | 6.00E+04 | 6 | 0 | 51 | 0 | 0.41 | 0.96 | 0.202 | 1.14E+07 | 1.32E+07 | 94 | 100 | 0.62 | 0.63 | |
F-6 | 2,3,5-Trimethyl- furan |
10504–04-8 | <0.001 | 4.50E+05 | 1.10E+04 | 1 | 0 | 43 | 0 | 0.39 | 0.99 | <0.001 | 8.87E+06 | 1.95E+07 | 97 | 100 | 0.57 | 0.88 | |
F-7 | Furan | 110–00-9 | <0.001 | 4.00E+06 | 5.70E+05 | 100 | 99 | 96 | 98 | 0.46 | 1.00 | 0.049 | 3.75E+06 | 5.16E+06 | 100 | 100 | 0.62 | 0.70 | |
F-8 | 2-Vinylfuran | 1487–18-9 | <0.001 | 4.10E+05 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 0 | 0.17 | 1.00 | ||||||||
F-9 | 3-Methyl-furan | 930–27-8 | 0.003 | 3.60E+06 | 5.40E+05 | 19 | 3 | 43 | 13 | 0.33 | 0.89 | <0.001 | 6.80E+05 | 1.77E+06 | 100 | 100 | 0.69 | 0.93 | |
Alka-1 | 3-Methyl-pentane | 96–14-0 | <0.001 | 5.20E+06 | 3.90E+06 | 46 | 37 | 11 | 40 | 0.10 | 0.85 | 0.503 | 1.85E+04 | 7.35E+03 | 14 | 7 | 0.94 | 0.15 | |
Alkenes | Alka-2 | 3,6-Dimethyl- decane |
17312–53-7 | 0.028 | 3.80E+06 | 2.20E+04 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 17 | 0.10 | 1.00 | |||||||
Alka-3 | 2,6-Dimethyl- decane |
13150–81-7 | 0.049 | 4.70E+06 | 1.30E+06 | 10 | 9 | 23 | 21 | 0.22 | 0.92 | ||||||||
Alke-1 | 3-Methyl-cyclo- pentene |
1120–62-3 | <0.001 | 4.50E+05 | 2.70E+04 | 4 | 9 | 47 | 0 | 0.42 | 0.99 | ||||||||
Alke-2 | 2-Pentene | 109–68-2 | <0.001 | 3.10E+06 | 3.60E+04 | 3 | 15 | 40 | 13 | 0.32 | 1.00 | 0.446 | 1.84E+04 | 4.06E+04 | 14 | 21 | 0.26 | 0.85 | |
Alke-3 | Propene | 115–07-1 | <0.001 | 3.80E+06 | 1.20E+06 | 84 | 100 | 94 | 91 | 0.46 | 0.84 | ||||||||
Alke-4 | 1-Butene | 106–98-9 | <0.001 | 2.50E+06 | 2.90E+05 | 24 | 24 | 55 | 53 | 0.44 | 0.92 | 0.533 | 5.91E+03 | 0.00E+00 | 3 | 0 | 1.00 | 0.03 | |
Alke-5 | 2,3-Dimethyl-2- butene |
563–79-1 | <0.001 | 2.50E+05 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 21 | 0 | 0.21 | 1.00 | ||||||||
Alke-6 | 1-Methyl-1-cyclo- pentene |
693–89-0 | <0.001 | 2.70E+05 | 1.40E+04 | 1 | 1 | 21 | 0 | 0.21 | 0.99 | ||||||||
Alke-7 | 2-Hexene | 592–43-8 | <0.001 | 3.60E+05 | 1.10E+04 | 3 | 0 | 23 | 0 | 0.22 | 0.98 | ||||||||
Alke-8 | 2-Butene | 107–01-7 | <0.001 | 1.10E+06 | 1.80E+05 | 28 | 19 | 55 | 17 | 0.27 | 0.91 | ||||||||
Alke-9 | (Z)-2-Butene | 590–18-1 | 0.001 | 4.60E+05 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 2 | 0.14 | 1.00 | ||||||||
Alke-10 | 3-Methyl-1-pentene | 760–20-3 | 0.001 | 3.70E+05 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 2 | 0.15 | 1.00 | ||||||||
Alke-11 | 2,5-Dimethyl-2- hexene |
3404–78-2 | 0.001 | 2.10E+05 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 0.14 | 1.00 | ||||||||
Alke-12 | 4,4-Dimethyl-1- cyclo-pentene |
19037–72-0 | 0.001 | 3.60E+05 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 0.15 | 1.00 | ||||||||
Alke-13 | 4-methyl-1-pentene | 691–37-2 | 0.001 | 7.70E+05 | 2.10E+05 | 29 | 1 | 53 | 6 | 0.45 | 0.81 | ||||||||
Alke-14 | 3-Octene | 14919–01-8 | 0.002 | 2.20E+06 | 1.00E+06 | 91 | 94 | 83 | 79 | 0.53 | 0.83 | 0.956 | 7.94E+04 | 7.93E+04 | 28 | 29 | 0.65 | 0.45 | |
Alke-15 | 2-Heptene | 592–77-8 | 0.003 | 1.70E+05 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 13 | 2 | 0.13 | 1.00 | 0.909 | 1.10E+04 | 1.13E+04 | 8 | 7 | 0.92 | 0.15 | |
Alke-16 | 3-Methyl-2-pentene | 922–61-2 | 0.003 | 7.90E+05 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 2 | 0.13 | 1.00 | ||||||||
Alke-17 | (E)-2-Pentene | 646–04-8 | 0.003 | 1.50E+06 | 1.10E+05 | 3 | 4 | 19 | 11 | 0.19 | 0.97 | 0.533 | 1.09E+04 | 0.00E+00 | 3 | 0 | 1.00 | 0.03 | |
Alke-18 | Methylene-cyclo- pentane |
1528–30-9 | 0.005 | 2.80E+05 | 6.10E+03 | 1 | 1 | 15 | 0 | 0.15 | 0.99 | ||||||||
Alke-19 | 2-Octene | 111–67-1 | 0.006 | 9.60E+04 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 0.11 | 1.00 | 0.875 | 2.03E+04 | 2.04E+04 | 6 | 7 | 0.91 | 0.16 | |
Alke-20 | (E)-3-Methyl-2- pentene |
616–12-6 | 0.006 | 8.30E+05 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 0.10 | 1.00 | ||||||||
Alke-21 | 2-Nonene | 2216–38-8 | 0.012 | 1.70E+06 | 9.30E+05 | 81 | 88 | 79 | 81 | 0.44 | 0.83 | ||||||||
Alke-22 | 1-Octene | 111–66-0 | 0.018 | 2.20E+05 | 3.70E+04 | 3 | 3 | 15 | 13 | 0.16 | 0.97 | 0.109 | 0.00E+00 | 1.66E+04 | 0 | 7 | 0.10 | 1.00 | |
Alke-23 | 2,3-Dimethyl-1- butene |
563–78-0 | 0.028 | 6.00E+05 | 5.20E+03 | 1 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 0.10 | 1.00 | ||||||||
Alke-24 | (Z)-3-Methyl-2- pentene |
922–62-3 | 0.0311 | 2.30E+05 | 1.90E+04 | 1 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 0.11 | 0.99 | ||||||||
Alke-25 | (E)-3-Dodecene | 7206–14-6 | 0.0345 | 4.20E+05 | 6.30E+04 | 7 | 3 | 19 | 21 | 0.19 | 0.93 | ||||||||
Alke-26 | 1-Heptene | 592–76-7 | <0.001 | 3.50E+06 | 4.50E+05 | 53 | 76 | 83 | 66 | 0.58 | 0.99 | 0.241 | 1.10E+05 | 1.67E+05 | 53 | 79 | 0.72 | 0.56 | |
Alkynes | Alky-1 | 2-Butyne | 503–17-3 | <0.001 | 2.60E+05 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 34 | 0 | 0.30 | 1.00 | |||||||
Alky-2 | 1-Propyne | 74–99-7 | <0.001 | 1.10E+06 | 1.00E+04 | 3 | 1 | 28 | 0 | 0.20 | 1.00 | ||||||||
Alky-3 | 1-Buten-3-yne | 689–97-4 | <0.001 | 2.20E+05 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 0 | 0.17 | 1.00 | ||||||||
Dienes | D-1 | 1,3- Cyclohexadiene |
592–57-4 | <0.001 | 1.90E+06 | 6.00E+04 | 10 | 9 | 81 | 2 | 0.50 | 0.98 | 0.109 | 0.00E+00 | 3.78E+05 | 0 | 7 | 0.10 | 1.00 |
D-2 | 1,3- Cyclopentadiene |
542–92-7 | <0.001 | 5.70E+06 | 2.00E+05 | 19 | 22 | 79 | 17 | 0.43 | 0.98 | 0.373 | 1.84E+04 | 0.00E+00 | 6 | 0 | 1.00 | 0.06 | |
D-3 | 3-Methyl-1,3- pentadiene |
2787–45-3 | <0.001 | 1.70E+06 | 2.60E+05 | 24 | 19 | 89 | 32 | 0.41 | 0.90 | ||||||||
D-4 | 1-Methyl-1,3- cyclo-pentadiene |
96–39-9 | <0.001 | 2.40E+06 | 2.30E+04 | 1 | 1 | 51 | 0 | 0.33 | 0.99 | ||||||||
D-5 | 2,6-Dimethyl-1,5- heptadiene |
6709–39-3 | <0.001 | 3.60E+05 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 0 | 0.36 | 1.00 | ||||||||
D-6 | (Z)-1,3-Pentadiene | 1574–41-0 | <0.001 | 7.00E+05 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 36 | 0 | 0.33 | 1.00 | ||||||||
D-7 | (3E)-2-Methyl-1,3- pentadiene |
926–54-5 | <0.001 | 1.20E+06 | 2.30E+05 | 18 | 16 | 66 | 6 | 0.41 | 0.91 | ||||||||
D-8 | 1,3-Pentadiene | 504–60-9 | <0.001 | 1.70E+06 | 1.10E+05 | 16 | 16 | 55 | 17 | 0.37 | 0.94 | 0.699 | 2.97E+04 | 1.88E+04 | 17 | 21 | 0.70 | 0.24 | |
D-9 | 4-Methyl-1,3- pentadiene |
926–56-7 | <0.001 | 7.30E+05 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 28 | 2 | 0.26 | 1.00 | ||||||||
D-10 | 2,4-Dimethyl-1,3- pentadiene |
1000–86-8 | <0.001 | 5.00E+05 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 28 | 0 | 0.26 | 1.00 | ||||||||
D-11 | 2,3-Di-methyl-1,3- pentadiene |
1113–56-0 | <0.001 | 4.80E+05 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 21 | 0 | 0.18 | 1.00 | ||||||||
D-12 | 5-Methyl- cyclopentadiene |
96–38-8 | <0.001 | 2.30E+06 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 0 | 0.17 | 1.00 | ||||||||
D-13 | (E)-1,3-Pentadiene | 2004–70-8 | <0.001 | 8.60E+05 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 11 | 0.17 | 1.00 | ||||||||
D-14 | (6Z)-2,6-Dimethyl- 2,6-octadiene |
2492–22-0 | <0.001 | 9.20E+05 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 0 | 0.19 | 1.00 | ||||||||
D-15 | (6E)-2,6-Dimethyl- 2,6-octadiene |
2609–23-6 | <0.001 | 2.30E+05 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 0 | 0.19 | 1.00 | ||||||||
D-16 | 1,4-Pentadiene | 591–93-5 | <0.001 | 7.10E+04 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 17 | 2 | 0.16 | 1.00 | ||||||||
D-17 | (E,E)-2,4- Hexadiene |
592–46-1 | <0.001 | 2.20E+06 | 6.60E+05 | 26 | 29 | 60 | 36 | 0.45 | 0.79 | 0.453 | 3.32E+05 | 3.77E+05 | 25 | 36 | 0.44 | 0.79 | |
D-18 | 6-Methyl-1,6- heptadiene |
13643–06-6 | 0.001 | 2.30E+05 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 0.14 | 1.00 | ||||||||
D-19 | 3,3,6-Tri-methyl- 1,5-heptadiene |
35387–63-4 | 0.001 | 2.90E+05 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 0.14 | 1.00 | ||||||||
D-20 | 2,7-Di-methyl-1,6- octadiene |
40195–09-3 | 0.001 | 4.50E+05 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 0.14 | 1.00 | ||||||||
D-21 | 3-Methyl-1,4- pentadiene |
1115–08-8 | 0.002 | 1.20E+05 | 4.90E+03 | 1 | 0 | 17 | 0 | 0.16 | 0.99 | ||||||||
D-22 | 1,3- Cycloheptadiene |
4054–38-0 | 0.003 | 1.80E+05 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 0 | 0.13 | 1.00 | ||||||||
D-23 | (4E)-1,4-Hexadiene | 7319–00-8 | 0.003 | 4.80E+05 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 2 | 0.13 | 1.00 | ||||||||
D-24 | (4E)-4-Methyl-1,4- heptadiene |
13857–55-1 | 0.0026 | 1.40E+05 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 0 | 0.13 | 1.00 | ||||||||
D-25 | 1-Methyl-1,4-cyclo- hexadiene |
4313–57-9 | 0.0026 | 4.90E+05 | 4.80E+04 | 1 | 0 | 17 | 0 | 0.17 | 0.99 | ||||||||
D-26 | 2-Methyl-1,4- hexadiene |
1119–14-8 | 0.0062 | 2.00E+05 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 0.10 | 1.00 | ||||||||
D-27 | (E,Z)-2,4- Hexadiene |
5194–50-3 | 0.0062 | 1.70E+05 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 0.02 | 1.00 | ||||||||
D-28 | 6-Methyl-1,5- heptadiene |
7270–50-0 | 0.0062 | 2.60E+05 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 0.10 | 1.00 | ||||||||
D-29 | 5,5-Dimethyl-1,3- cyclo-pentadiene |
4125–18-2 | 0.0122 | 5.00E+05 | 1.40E+04 | 1 | 0 | 13 | 2 | 0.13 | 0.99 | ||||||||
Ketones | K-1 | 3-Hexanone | 589–38-8 | <0.001 | 2.00E+05 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 0 | 0.17 | 1.00 | 0.373 | 7.53E+05 | 0.00E+00 | 6 | 0 | 1.00 | 0.06 |
K-2 | 3-Penten-2-one | 625–33-2 | 0.002 | 1.90E+05 | 5.70E+03 | 1 | 0 | 17 | 9 | 0.15 | 0.99 | 0.331 | 7.03E+05 | 7.87E+05 | 100 | 100 | 0.55 | 0.61 | |
VNCs | N-1 | Aceto-nitrile | 1975–05-08 | <0.001 | 5.40E+07 | 6.50E+06 | 96 | 91 | 96 | 94 | 0.64 | 0.96 | 0.262 | 3.94E+04 | 1.04E+06 | 19 | 86 | 0.73 | 1.00 |
N-2 | 2-Cyano-1-propene | 126–98-7 | 0.006 | 5.10E+04 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 0.11 | 1.00 | ||||||||
N-3 | N-Methyl-pyrrole | 96–54-8 | 0.012 | 1.90E+05 | 1.30E+04 | 1 | 1 | 13 | 9 | 0.13 | 0.99 | ||||||||
VSCs | S-1 | Ethyl methyl sulfide |
624–89-5 | 0.01 | 6.70E+04 | 1.40E+04 | 3 | 0 | 17 | 0 | 0.18 | 0.97 | 0.719 | 7.98E+04 | 6.96E+04 | 58 | 57 | 0.58 | 0.52 |
Many compounds summarized in table 3 show a specificity for smoking close to 1 and lower sensitivity in breath as well as in urine. This means that the group classified as smokers consists practically entirely of real smokers; however, the group classified as non+ex-smokers can contain a considerable part of smokers. As an example, using exhaled toluene levels, the smoking classified group contains 7% ( = 1 – specificity) of non-smokers, whereas the group classified as non+ex-smokers contains 49% ( = 1 – sensitivity) of smokers (table 3). A possible explanation for this could be that different subgroups exist within the smokers group depending on the brand, thus the different ingredients, of cigarettes. Another possible factor could be the time elapsed after smoking, which influences the measured value of smoking-related compounds.
Ketones
Acetone appears in everyone’s breath and urine samples, being the most abundant VOC among all detected. In addition, 2-butanone and 2-pentanone could be detected in breath with high frequencies of 94% and 88%, respectively (non+ex smokers group), and they were present in all the examined urine samples, but also often in inspired air. According to our results, significantly higher levels of both 2-butanone and 2-pentanone were observed for exhaled breath as compared to indoor air (p <10−3 for both compounds in non-smokers). The obtained results are in accordance to already published data suggesting the degradation of fatty acids as a potential endogenous source of both 2-butanone and 2-pentanone [25]. Intriguingly, the same authors report lower exhaled levels of 2-butanone in breath than its inhaled air in the case of few individuals involved in their study [25]. Another discrepancy is that 2-butanone was found by Buszewski et al [15] more often in the exhaled air of smokers than non-smokers pointing its putative relation to smoking habit. This cannot be unambiguously confirmed by us, since no statistical significance was found for the difference between 2-butanone levels for active smokers and non-smoking controls (p = 0.2, Kruskal–Wallis test), although slightly higher peak areas of this substance were indeed detected for smokers. Levels of 2-pentanone remain for both smoker and non-smoker groups similar as for most of other ketones detected.
A common constituent in urine is 4-heptanone that is supposed to originate from β-oxidation of 2-ethylhexanoic acid [26], and accordingly, it was found in 100% of urine but also in 30% of breath samples. Among all ketones, the significant difference between active smokers and non+ex-smokers was found only for 3-hexanone (found exclusively in smokers) and 3-pentene-2-one (detected mostly in smokers); however, their occurrence in the breath of smoking subjects was only 17% (for both analytes). Additionally, these two compounds could be detected in urine with a high occurrence for both smoker and non+ex-smoker groups with a higher mean value for smokers (table 3).
Aldehydes
Among aldehydes, acetaldehyde was found at the highest levels in almost every breath, urine and room-air sample, while the second in respect to abundance and occurrence was benzaldehyde. Concerning relation to smoking habit, diverse volatile aldehydes, such as formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, propanal, acrolein, butanal and crotonaldehyde, are the constituents of cigarette smoke [27] and as such can attain the body by smoking. Correspondingly, we found higher levels of acetaldehyde, propanal, acrolein and crotonaldehyde (2-butenal) in exhaled breath of smokers. Butanal and formaldehyde show even lower levels for smokers than for non-smokers which can be explained with the occasionally higher amounts of these compounds in the respective inspired air. Importantly, the breath level for vast majority of detected aldehydes was significantly lower than in respective indoor air and the correlation between these inhaled and exhaled air samples was found for few aldehydes.
Alcohols
Apart from 1-propanol and 2-propanol, which are commonly used solvents in lab environment and constituents of disinfection agents ant paints [28], methanol and ethanol have shown a great occurrence in breath samples. Different studies have been investigated for monitoring of methanol and ethanol concentration in exhaled air [29–31]. Surprisingly, we found the same inspiratory and expiratory levels for ethanol and a more than 3 times higher value of mean peak area of methanol in exhaled breath compared to indoor air. The difference in the concentrations of methanol and ethanol between smokers and non-smokers is not significant (p = 0.71 for methanol and p = 0.91 for ethanol). The mean peak area of 1-propanol was not significantly different for smokers and non-smokers (p = 0.28), but as a constituent of disinfectants this compound is present at a higher level in indoor air (especially in hospital environment) than in exhaled air.
Acids and esters
Substantially higher occurrences of acetic acid and propionic acid in breath samples (51% and 26%, respectively, for non-smokers) than in indoor-air samples (less than 3% for both) might indicate the endogenous origin of these compounds. On the other hand, both acids show significantly higher breath levels for active-smokers.
Although esters, such as methyl acetate and ethyl acetate, are the ingredients of cigarette, their measured level in exhaled breath of active smokers was not significantly higher than those of non-smokers (p = 0.21 and p = 0.96, respectively). Among these two analytes, methyl acetate was found in nearly all breath samples measured but in only 40% of indoor-air samples for non-smokers and 26% for active smokers; see table 2 for details). Consequently, its level in expired air was significantly higher than in inspired air for both groups of subjects. Incidentally, methyl acetate is the compound which increases in concentration during effort [32]. Its appearance in exhaled breath is in agreement with previously published data showing the release of methyl acetate from human bronchial epithelial cells [9].
Furans
It is very intriguing that some of breath-VOCs related to smoking habit (table 3) are also very often found in the headspace of urine samples. This predominantly concerns furans that were observed in almost every urine sample, while only 13 among 50 of urine donors were smokers. Generally, apart from 3-methylfuran and 2-ethyl-5-methylfuran, all compounds of this class were found at nearly the same level in exhaled breath and indoor-air samples for non-smokers (figure 1) with no indication of their endogenous origin. Importantly, practically all furans were found at over fivefold higher level in the breath of smokers compared to non-smokers. Among them only furfural was detected at lower level in breath of smokers, but the exhaled amount of this compound seems to be strongly dependent on inspired level, regardless of smoking status (see table 2 for details). For most compounds of this class, comprised of furan, 2-methylfuran, 3-methylfuran, 2,4-dimethylfuran, 2,5-dimethylfuran, 2-ethyl-5-methylfuran and 2,3,5-trimethylfuran, the significant differences between the smoker and the non-smoker groups were found for both sort of samples investigated, i.e. breath-gas and urine headspace, clearly demonstrating a relation to the smoking habit.
Figure 1. Mean peak areas of furans in regard to smoking habit and occurrence in exhaled breath and indoor air.
Black diagonal line: 1:1 level between expired and inspired airs; blue line: twofold increase in expired air; red line: fivefold increase in expired air. Black crosses: mean peak area for active smokers (n = 47); green crosses: mean peak area for non+ex smokers (n = 68); for numbers refer to table 3 where more detail data concerning plotted compounds are given.
Aromatics
Similarly to furans, most of aromatic hydrocarbons were observed in this study at a significantly higher level in smokers compared to non-smokers (except 1-butenylbenzene found in only two samples of active-smokers). Importantly, apart from toluene, all measured aromatics show lower levels in exhaled breath than indoor air for non-smokers, confirming that the intake of these substances is mostly related to smoking habit. Supporting this assumption, benzene, toluene and styrene were detected at significant higher mean levels in the smokers’ urine samples compared to non+ex-smokers (table 3).
Saturated hydrocarbons
Propane, n-butane and n-pentane were found in the breath with high occurrence of 87%, 99% and 90%, respectively (table 2). The first two are considered as the metabolic products of bacteria and from protein oxidation [33]; however, observed in this work, the expired level of n-butane was found to be smaller than inspired (in the groups of non-smokers). Among remaining straight-chained saturated hydrocarbons (ordered in diminishing occurrence), n-hexane was found in 100%, n-decane in 99%, n-undecane in 90%, n-octane in 85%, n-nonane in 81% and n-heptane in 65% of non-smokers. The later one should be considered as exogenous contaminant, since its occurrence in breath was limited to the cases when it was also found in corresponding inspired air. n-decane was found at nearly identical levels in expired and inspired air with no statistical difference (p = 0.40 and p = 0.66 for non-smokers and active smokers, respectively). Although n-decane and n-octane have been reported as smoking-related compounds by Buszewski et al [15], no straight-chained saturated hydrocarbons were found to be significantly related to smoking habit in our study (table 3). In turn, for several methylated (and one cyclic) saturated hydrocarbons, the significant difference between smoking and non-smoking individuals was observed.
The importance of careful consideration of smoking habit for application of breath analysis in the medical diagnosis can be exemplified with 2-methylpentane. This compound was indicated as a smoking-related compound in [15] with four times higher concentrations reported for smokers’ breath. Interestingly, the same authors suggest this compound, and its isomer 3-methylpentane, to be cancer related, detecting them both at higher levels in expired air of lung cancer patients compared to healthy controls [6]. Considering their other findings and the fact that lung cancer patients have richer history of smoking than healthy subjects, the link of 2-methylpentane to lung cancer might result from a hidden correlation. Nevertheless, no significant difference between breath level of smokers and non-smokers was found for 2-methylpentane in our experiments, whereby its distributions in both groups compared were almost equal (87% and 83%, respectively, p = 0.11).
Unsaturated hydrocarbons
The unsaturated hydrocarbons detected in the cohort of tested subjects were generally classified in three groups (except aromatics), i.e. alkenes, dienes and alkynes, while the most abundant unsaturated hydrocarbon detected in practically everyone’s exhaled air (100% occurrence for both smoker and non-smoker) is isoprene.
In the group of alkenes, propene and 3-octene were often detected in breath samples; however, their abundance was found to be similar to that in indoor air. A big number of other branched but also linear alkenes could be detected at a higher expired level for smokers than non-smokers, indicating an exogenous, clearly smoking-related nature of these compounds (figure 3). The strong dependence on smoking habits is particularly explicable for the group of dienes, which, apart from few isomers of pentadiene and hexadiene, were almost never found in the breath of non-smokers (table 3). Hence, an impressive separation of the smokers from non- and ex-smokers was achieved according to the measured expired alkenes and especially dienes (figure 4). Additionally, three alkynes were found to be significantly related to smoking behavior: propyne, 2-butyne, 1-buten-3-yne (p <10−4, p < 10−6, p < 0.001, respectively) while only propyne was detected in non-smokers (3% of tested population).
Figure 3. Mean peak areas of alkenes in regard to smoking habit and occurrence in exhaled breath and indoor air.
Black diagonal line: 1:1 level between expired and inspired airs; blue line: twofold increase in expired air; red line: fivefold increase in expired air. Black crosses: mean peak area for active smokers (n = 47); green crosses: mean peak area for non+ex smokers (n = 68); for numbers refer to table 3 where more detail data concerning plotted compounds are given.
Figure 4. Mean peak areas of dienes in regard to smoking habit and occurrence in exhaled breath and indoor air.
Black diagonal line: 1:1 level between expired and inspired airs; blue line: twofold increase in expired air; red line: fivefold increase in expired air. Black crosses: mean peak area for active smokers (n = 47); green crosses: mean peak area for non+ex smokers (n = 68); for numbers refer to table 3 where more detail data concerning plotted compounds are given.
Sulfur compounds
Among volatile sulfur compounds, dimethylsulfide (DMS), methanthiol, methyl propyl sulfide and allyl methyl sulfide could be detected most often in human breath. The first two are common constituents also in urine.
The mean peak area of methanethiol for expiratory air was found at nearly the same level as for inspiratory air, while dimethylsulfide, methyl propyl sulfide, allyl methyl sulfide, 3-methylthiophene and 1-(methylthio)-1-propene show elevated mean exhaled breath values. Furthermore, allyl methyl sulfide and both isomers of 1-(methylthio)-1-propene could be detected solely in breath and not in indoor air, excluding the exposure to air pollutants from their potential sources in human’s breath. Apparently, these compounds might be metabolized in the body in consequence of consumption of specific vegetables, such as onion and garlic [34]. The only volatile sulfur compound for which a significantly higher breath level was found for active smokers is ethyl methyl sulfide (p <0.001) but the occurrence of this analytes was low even in the groups of smokers (17% of population).
Nitrogen-containing compounds
Among the nitrogen-containing compounds acetonitrile, N,N-dimethylformamide and N,N-diethylformamide were often in the breath samples. Acetonitrile could be detected also in approximately one-third of the urine samples. Numerous studies support the smoking-related origin of acetonitrile. It was detected both in the smoke of a lit cigarette [35] and in the breath of smokers [6, 15] as well as in the headspace of urine of smoking persons [36, 37]. Correspondingly, we also detected a significantly higher value of mean peak area in breath and in urine headspace for a smoker than that for a non-smoker (p <10−3 for breath and urine). Furthermore, a significantly higher level in smokers’ breath was also observed for 2-cyano-1-propene and N-methylpyrrole, while lower for (dimethylamino)-acetonitrile and 4-propanenitrile (figure 5). Nevertheless, the mean breath level of 4-propanenitrile was not significantly different than corresponding indoor air and simultaneously both were correlated. Hence, although p < 0.05 was found (Kruskal–Wallis test) this analyte should not be considered as a smoking-related VOC. In turn, N,N-dimethylformamide and N,N-diethylformamide are common organic solvents and known artifacts released from Tedlar bags [7, 38]. Thus, the existence of mentioned amides in exhaled breath is rather doubtful and detected levels are most probably related to background contaminants.
Figure 5. Mean peak areas of nitrogen-containing VOCs in regard to smoking habit and occurrence in exhaled breath and indoor air.
Black diagonal line: 1:1 level between expired and inspired airs; blue line: twofold increase in expired air; red line: fivefold increase in expired air. Black crosses: mean peak area for active smokers (n = 47), green crosses: mean peak area for non+ex smokers (n = 68); for numbers refer to table 3 where more detail data concerning plotted compounds are given.
Discussion
Exhaled breath can be influenced by environmental exposures based on direct inhalation, dermal exposure or consumed food. A part of inhaled substances will be retained in the upper airways, while another part enters the lung for further mass transfer, distribution and metabolism. The water solubility and partial pressure are probably the most important properties affecting the mass transfer of organic compounds between aqueous phase and gas phase; thus, this determines the partition between blood stream and alveolar capillary membrane and so the transfer rate of VOCs from blood to alveolar breath. In the case of low solubility in alveolar wall and high solubility in blood, the gas transfer is diffusion limited. This means that the transfer across the blood–gas barrier is rapid and dependent only on the diffusion properties of the alveolar wall. When the solubility in alveolar wall and blood is very similar (or the same), transfer is perfusion limited. In this case, the partial pressure of an analyte in the blood components (such as erythrocytes) rises due to chemical bonding; thus, the transport efficiency depends entirely on the blood flow (supply in fresh erythrocytes). Besides, also a gradient of partial pressure between an alveoli and erythrocyte influences the transfer (the smaller gradient, the smaller blood–gas exchange). Apart of that water-soluble compounds eliminated from blood stream are excreted from the body mainly via urinary tract.
Endogenous compounds
Acetone is the most abundant substance in the exhaled air and is produced via spontaneous decarboxylation of acetoacetate deriving from either lipolysis or amino acid degradation [39]. Acetone is a well-studied substance [2] and was suggested as a marker for uncontrolled diabetes mellitus exhibiting an enhanced concentration in the case of the disease [40]. Besides, it has been linked to other diseases, such as heart failure or liver illnesses [41–43]. The second most thoroughly investigated breath-VOC is isoprene which is also found in everyone’s breath at high concentrations, estimated by Gelmont et al at 2–4 mg/day, corresponding to 30–70% of all hydrocarbons [44]. Although considerable environmental sources of isoprene are known, mainly petrochemical industry (manufacturing of synthetic rubbers) and natural production by plants, it is commonly considered that the main source of isoprene is an endogenous synthesis probably from mevalonic acid, a precursor in cholesterol biosynthesis [45]. Investigations on adult populations show age and gender dependence but no relation to the cholesterol level was found [46]. Further studies demonstrated that the breath isoprene level rapidly increases during moderate workload [32, 47–49] suggesting that muscles may release substantial amounts of this analyte [50], particularly during the physical activity. Moreover, a study on patients with chronic liver disease has shown elevated isoprene concentrations in their exhaled breath compared to the breath of healthy volunteers [43]. A significantly lower level of isoprene was found in exhaled air of patients with heart failure [51] and lung cancer [7, 18]. Recent research with patients suffering from muscle dystrophy demonstrates that muscle tissues can be expected to act as extrahepatic sites responsible for substantial production of isoprene [50]. These findings exemplify the complexity of breath analysis and show that the role of isoprene in the human body is not yet understood [52]. It should also be mentioned that the partition constant of isoprene between blood and alveolar air is not exactly identical in different volunteers [53,54]. Nevertheless, results of the mentioned studies suggest the importance of this compound also for future diagnostic purposes.
As mentioned, 2-pentanone is expected to be produced via degradation of fatty acids [25], which was confirmed with breath analysis of fasting individuals [55] for which positive alveolar gradients of 2-pentanone and 2-butanone were reported. Moreover, 2-pentanone was found to be released from human bronchial epithelial cells and human fibroblasts (both are non-transformed lung cells) as well as from A549 lung cancer cells [9]. On the other hand, 2-butanone was significantly taken up by CALU-1 lung cancer cells [10], while its release was not observed from any of the investigated lung cell lines. Apparently, 2-butanone was either catabolized by CALU-1 cells or, as an important intermediate product, used in further metabolic cycles. The detail biochemical pathways for both ketones in lung cells remain, however, largely unknown.
Another endogenous compound is acetaldehyde, which was detected in almost every breath and urine sample. The major endogenous source of this substance is the oxidation of ethanol via the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase [56]. Other aldehydes, such as acrolein and methacrolein are considered as the end products of lipid peroxidation [57]. Similarly, breath alcohols, such as methanol and ethanol, are the well-known metabolic products arising partly through fermentation in the gut [58]. Endogenous methanol is also generated through the methyltransferase enzymatic system [59]. Acetic acid, and also 2,3-butanedione, 1-butanol, 2-propanol, acetaldehyde and ethanol, can be formed through the glycolytic and non-glycolytic fermentations of carbohydrates (oxidation of acetaldehyde by the enzyme aldehyde dehydrogenase), lactate converting fermentations but also the fermentations of amino acids (e.g. alanine, glycine and especially glutamate) [56, 60]. The production of propionic acid occurs in the gut and is influenced by diet and nature of bacteria populations residing there [61]. Esters can also be generated endogenously in processes related to enzymatic reactions of hydroxyl compounds (e.g. alcohols) and short- and intermediate-chain free fatty acids [62], which are created in high concentrations via lipolysis of triglycerides [63].
Recent studies have shown an elevated amount of n-pentane in exhaled air of persons with breast cancer [16], but also a substantially higher level of n-hexane for lung cancer patients [6]. One of the endogenous origin of pentane is peroxidation of fatty acids [64, 65] and, therefore, it serves as a good marker of the so-called oxidative stress [33]. Some saturated hydrocarbons have been linked to lung cancer, e.g., the elevated level of n-decane in exhaled breath of cancer patients (compared to healthy control) was reported by Poli et al [66]. n-decane was also detected in cancer cell cultures and as such was considered to be the characteristic marker for apoptosis and necrosis stages [67]. Methylated hydrocarbons are concerned also as products of lipid peroxidation and supposed to be markers of lung cancer and oxidative stress [68]; however, the origin of their formation have not yet been completely revealed. Particularly interesting is the case of 2-methylpentane, which was found to be released by NCIH2087 lung cancer cells (causing non-small cell lung cancer: Adenocarcinoma) [12] and not by healthy (non-transformed) lung cells: human bronchial epithelial primary cells and human fibroblasts [9]. This important observation explicates findings of other researchers reporting a significantly higher level of 2-methylpentane in the breath of patients suffering from non-small cell lung cancer [66].
Recently performed in vitro experiments demonstrate that diverse volatile sulfur-containing compounds (VSCs), inter alia methanethiol, dimethylsulfide, dimethyldisulfide or dimethyltrisulfide, are produced by pathogenic bacteria colonizing upper and lower airways and causing lung infection, such as pneumonia [8]. VSCs can be produced endogenously through the metabolism of the sulfur-containing amino acids (methionine and cysteine) in the transamination pathway [69]. According to Tangermann, methanethiol is produced via demethiolation of methionine catalyzed by the enzyme l-methionine γ-lyase and from methylation of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) (product of cysteine metabolism) by the enzyme S-methyltransferase [70]. However, the importance of hydrogen disulfide methylation was questioned by Levitt’s group [71, 72]. There is an evidence that transamination is the principal pathway of methionine catabolism in bacteria, yielding the intermediate product 4-methylthio-2-ketobutyrate which may be directly reduced to methanethiol or may undergo decarboxylation to methional prior final reduction [73]. Recently, Troccaz et al suggest the generation of methanethiol from l-cystathionine via recombinant cystathionine b-lyase in Staphyloccoci heamolyticus [74]. Thiol S-methyltransferase also forms dimethylsulfide via the methylation of methyl mercaptane [70]. These processes can be considered as a detoxification mechanism, removing toxic sulfur species (H2S and methanethiol) from tissues. Dimethylsulfide was also found to be the main cause of extra-oral halitosis [70].
Influence of exogenous factors
Environmental pollutants
Aromatics play a key role as environmental contaminants in both indoor air and outdoor air. Over the last 20 years, numerous studies were focused on the analysis of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene (BTEX)—exposure by measurement of blood, urine and exhaled air [75–77]. These compounds could be detected in almost all breath and urine samples. Benzene is still counted to be a component of petrochemical industry products including gasoline, so inhalation is the most common exposure route. However, it also rapidly penetrates the skin and can contaminate water and food causing additional dermal and ingestion exposure [78,79]. Toluene is used as a solvent in the paint industry what considerably increase the risk of exposure on this substance in the certain group of employees [28]. o-xylene and p-xylene are also environmental pollutants that could be measured in the exhaled air and in urine. However, our results in urine are either doubtful, because these compounds are released also by the SPME-fiber.
Very important for correct interpretation of breath analysis is careful consideration of aldehydes emission from floor materials [80], wood furniture and plasticizers [81], which results in the high background level of indoor air. Consequently, diverse aldehydes are detectable in inspired air at substantially higher levels than in exhaled breath for non-smokers. Benzaldehyde found with the second highest abundance among the aldehydes might derive from exogenous intake as it is released to the environment in emissions from combustion processes, such as gasoline and diesel engines, incinerators and wood burning to the environment [82], which is revealed in the higher inspiratory than the expiratory level. Other aldehydes detected often in exhaled air, such as acrolein and methacrolein, can also be found in the environment as plasticizers and aggregate in the water supply of some industrial plants. Besides this, disposal in the environment occurs when organic matters like plants and fuels, such as gasoline and oil, are burned. Aldehydes can be generated in the oxidative degradation process of e.g. constituents of linoleum such as oleic acid and linoleic acids both saturated and unsaturated [83, 84]. Supporting this, all aldehydes detected in our study apart from 2-methyl-2-butenal and 3-methyl-2-butenal were at a higher level in indoor air than in exhaled breath pointing out the possibly exogenous origin. A very prominent example of dependence of breath-aldehydes level on the amount in ambient air is propanal, detected in almost 100% of all samples measured in this study (p <10−3). This observation is in agreement with other works, where propanal was found to be emitted from the combustion of gasoline, diesel fuel and wood [85]. Similarly, alcohols, such as isomers of propanol, are commonly occurring compounds in the indoor environment as, e.g., disinfectants or solvents [86]; hence, their inspired level was found to be higher from expired.
Finally, exhaled volatile sulfur compounds may be related to environmental exposure of both natural sources (soils, marshes) and pollutants. It is known that several industrial processes produce carbon disulfide as a by-product, including coal blast furnaces and oil refining.
Food and beverages
A large number of VOCs of diverse chemical classes are present as flavors in food and beverages substantially contributing to metabolism within humans. Alcohols, such as ethanol, are commonly known food ingredients. Also ketones are omnipresent in beverages (beer, wine, rum, whisky, coffee, tea) and in numerous types of food, particularly in fruit, vegetables, cheese, milk, meat and bread [87–89]. Aldehydes might be used directly as a flavoring agent, such as benzaldehyde particularly for artificial cherry or almond flavors but also several other foods, like sausages, wines [90, 91]. Numerous VSCs present in breath gas are the natural ingredients of vegetables such as methyl propyl sulfide and especially allyl methyl sulfide constituting leek and garlic oils. In turn, methanethiol, dimethylsulfide and dimethyldisulfide are present in cheese, fish, meat, baked goods and beverages, such as coffee, wine, beer, milk [87]. Besides, furan derivates have long been known to occur in heat-treated foods, like in biscuits, bread crust or roasted coffee beans, contributing to their sensory properties [92]. In this respect, high occurrence of furans in urine headspace samples may not necessary reflect the smoking habit but also the consumption of beverages and foodstuff.
The limitations resulting from diet or exposure to environmental pollutants are the common problems accompanying breath analysis in general and are inevitable in the clinical study, regardless of its purpose and analytical method applied. Thereby, the elevated levels of aldehydes might reflect exposure to indoor-air artifacts instead of lung cancer, while high concentrations of breath-VSCs might be related to specific diet rather than bacterial lung infection or liver malfunction.
Smoking-related compounds
According to here-presented results, diverse unsaturated hydrocarbons are related to smoking habit, comprising 26 alkenes, 3 alkynes and 29 dienes (table 3). The values of specificity determined for single compounds being above 90% (with exemption of six substances with values >79%) enable successful classification of smoking individuals. Importantly, a cohort of 30 compounds (comprising 19 dienes) were never found in the exhaled air of non-smokers (specificity = 1) excluding all non-smokers from the classified smoker group.
While many of the unsaturated hydrocarbons are constituents of cigarette smoke (created mostly during combustion of tobacco), other can originate from oxidation of phospholipids in membrane [93] caused by reactive chemicals in the smoke of a cigarette.
Apart from unsaturated hydrocarbons, aromatic compounds also exhibit relation to smoking habit. The most important aromatics occurring with the highest peak area values in smoker’s breath are BTEX. Because of the toxicity and carcinogenicity of these compounds, their analysis is still a topic [94, 95]. Since aforementioned aromatic hydrocarbons are also present in the smoke of a cigarette, passive smokers are also exposed to these compounds [15]. BTEX were also found in urine headspace of smokers, which can testify that substances released from the tar covering the lungs enter the bloodstream and are (in small part) further removed from the organism via urinary tract. Although saturated hydrocarbons such as n-decane or 2-methylpentane were reported to be smoking-related breath VOCs by Buszewski et al [15], we did not find the statistically significant difference between their breath levels in smokers and non-smokers.
Several furans and VNCs were found at elevated levels in exhaled breath and urine samples, what is in agreement with the works of other researchers supporting the smoking-related origin of these VOCs. In particular, acetonitrile was detected in the smoke of a lit cigarette [35] and in the breath of smokers [6, 15] as well as in the headspace of urine of smokers [36, 37].
Conclusion
In this paper the patterns of VOCs detected in exhaled breath and corresponding inhaled air of 115 persons are presented. The GC-MS analyses of expired air are supported with results of urine samples collected from 50 persons. Our database of retention times (comprising 230 compounds) was used to complement the preliminary VOCs identification based on MS spectra match. The influence of smoking habit on exhaled breath composition was discussed in detail. Thereby, 86 organic compounds were significantly related to smoking, with the largest group being unsaturated hydrocarbons (29 dienes, 26 alkenes and 3 alkynes). Altogether, the results presented here demonstrate that the composition of exhaled breath is considerably influenced by exogenous factors like smoking, exposure on indoor-air contaminations and diet. Therefore, with respect to diagnostic purposes of breath analysis, compounds such as hydrocarbons and particularly aldehydes have to be considered with great care since their elevated exhaled level might reveal the relation to smoking, respectively, exposure to air pollutants, rather than lung cancer. Similarly, the presence of certain VSCs and furans could result from specific diet instead of bacterial lung infection or liver malfunction. Hence, on the way of searching for breath markers of certain disease, it is absolutely mandatory to carefully investigate the potential biological origin of analytes on scope. For this purpose, determination of selected VOCs in diverse body fluids, human specimens, such as lung tissues or isolated cell lines and bacteria cultures, will surely lead to better understanding of information gained from breath analysis.
Figure 2. Mean peak areas of aromatic compounds in regard to smoking habit and occurrence in exhaled breath and indoor air.
Black diagonal line: 1:1 level between expired and inspired airs; blue line: twofold increase in expired air; red line: fivefold increase in expired air. Black crosses: mean peak area for active smokers (n = 47); green crosses: mean peak area for non+ex smokers (n = 68); for numbers refer to table 3 where more detail data concerning plotted compounds are given.
Acknowledgments
The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Commission (Project BAMOD, project number LSHC-CT-2005-019031) and from the Austrian Agency for International Cooperation in Education and Research (OeAD) under grant agreement SPA/02-87/FEM_TRACE. We thank Elisabeth Niederstetter, Pascalle Maier, Tabea Halmschlager, Hannah-Sophia Feuerstein, Ann-Cathrine Sassmann, Julia Lovasz, Lilli-Ruth Fidler, Therese Sperlich for their work in the project FEM_TRACE. Veronika Ruzsanyi gratefully acknowledges a Lise-Meitner fellowship from the Austrian Science Fund (FWF, project number: M1213). We greatly appreciate the generous support of the government of Vorarlberg and its governor (Landeshauptmann) Dr Herbert Sausgruber.
Footnotes
This work was presented at the Breath Analysis Summit 2011 (11–14 September 2011, Parma, Italy).
References
- [1].Erhart S, Amann A, Karall D, Edlinger G, Haberlandt E, Schmid A, Filipiak W, Mochalski P, Rostasy K, Scholl-Bürgi S. 3-Heptanone as a potential new marker for valproic acid therapy. J. Breath Res. 2009;3:016004. doi: 10.1088/1752-7155/3/1/016004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [2].Schwarz K, Filipiak W, Amann A. Determining concentration patterns of volatile compounds in exhaled breath by PTR-MS. J. Breath Res. 2009;3:027002. doi: 10.1088/1752-7155/3/2/027002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [3].Buhr K, van Ruth S, Delahunty C. Analysis of volatile flavour compounds by proton transfer reaction-mass spectrometry: fragmentation patterns and discrimination between isobaric and isomeric compounds. Int. J. Mass Spectrom. 2002;221:1–7. [Google Scholar]
- [4].Maleknia SD, Bell TL, Adams MA. PTR-MS analysis of reference and plant-emitted volatile organic compounds. Int. J. Mass Spectrom. 2007;262:203–10. [Google Scholar]
- [5].Keck L, Hoeschen C, Oeh U. Effects of carbon dioxide in breath gas on proton transfer reaction-mass spectrometry (PTR-MS) measurements. Int. J. Mass Spectrom. 2008;270:156–65. [Google Scholar]
- [6].Ligor M, et al. Determination of volatile organic compounds in exhaled breath of patients with lung cancer using solid phase microextraction and gas chromatography mass spectrometry. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 2009;47:550–60. doi: 10.1515/CCLM.2009.133. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [7].Bajtarevic A, et al. Noninvasive detection of lung cancer by analysis of exhaled breath. BMC Cancer. 2009;9:348. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-9-348. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [8].Filipiak W, Sponring A, Bauer M, Filipiak A, Ager C, Wiesenhofer H, Nagl M, Troppmair J, Amann A. Molecular analysis of volatile metabolites released specifically by Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. BMC Microbiol. 2012;12:113. doi: 10.1186/1471-2180-12-113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [9].Filipiak W, Sponring A, Filipiak A, Ager C, Schubert J, Miekisch W, Amann A, Troppmair J. TD-GC-MS analysis of volatile metabolites of human lung cancer and normal cells in vitro. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2010;19:182–95. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-0162. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [10].Filipiak W, Sponring A, Mikoviny T, Ager C, Schubert J, Miekisch W, Amann A, Troppmair J. Release of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the lung cancer cell line CALU-1 in vitro. Cancer Cell Int. 2008;8:17. doi: 10.1186/1475-2867-8-17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [11].Sponring A, Filipiak W, Ager C, Schubert J, Miekisch W, Amann A, Troppmair J. Analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the headspace of NCI-H1666 lung cancer cells. Cancer Biomarkers. 2010;7:153–61. doi: 10.3233/CBM-2010-0182. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [12].Sponring A, Filipiak W, Mikoviny T, Ager C, Schubert J, Miekisch W, Amann A, Troppmair J. Release of volatile organic compounds from the lung cancer cell line NCI-H2087 in vitro. Anticancer Res. 2009;29:419–26. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [13].Phillips M, Herrera J, Krishnan S, Zain M, Greenberg J, Cataneo RN. Variation in volatile organic compounds in the breath of normal humans. J. Chromatogr. B, Biomed. Sci. Appl. 1999;729:75–88. doi: 10.1016/s0378-4347(99)00127-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [14].Buszewski B, Kesy M, Ligor T, Amann A. Human exhaled air analytics: biomarkers of diseases. Biomed. Chromatogr. 2007;21:553–66. doi: 10.1002/bmc.835. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [15].Buszewski B, Ulanowska A, Ligor T, Denderz N, Amann A. Analysis of exhaled breath from smokers, passive smokers and non-smokers by solid-phase microextraction gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Biomed. Chromatogr. 2009;23:551–6. doi: 10.1002/bmc.1141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [16].Phillips M, Cataneo RN, Ditkoff BA, Fisher P, Greenberg J, Gunawardena R, Kwon CS, Tietje O, Wong C. Prediction of breast cancer using volatile biomarkers in the breath. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2006;99:19–21. doi: 10.1007/s10549-006-9176-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [17].Phillips M, Gleeson K, Hughes JM, Greenberg J, Cataneo RN, Baker L, McVay WP. Volatile organic compounds in breath as markers of lung cancer: a cross-sectional study. Lancet. 1999;353:1930–3. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)07552-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [18].Wehinger A, Schmid A, Mechtcheriakov S, Ledochowski M, Grabmer C, Gastl GA, Amann A. Lung cancer detection by proton transfer reaction mass-spectrometric analysis of human breath gas. Int. J. Mass Spectrom. 2007;265:49–59. [Google Scholar]
- [19].Wzorek B, Mochalski P, Sliwka I, Amann A. Application of GC-MS with a SPME and thermal desorption technique for determination of dimethylamine and trimethylamine in gaseous samples for medical diagnostic purposes. J. Breath Res. 2010;4:026002. doi: 10.1088/1752-7155/4/2/026002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [20].Davies S, Spanel P, Smith D. A new ‘online’ method to measure increased exhaled isoprene in end-stage renal failure. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 2001;16:836–9. doi: 10.1093/ndt/16.4.836. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [21].Mochalski P, Agapiou A, Statheropoulos M, Amann A. Permeation profiles of potential urine-borne biomarkers of human presence over brick and concrete. Analyst. 2012;137:3278–85. doi: 10.1039/c2an35214a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [22].Mochalski P, Krapf K, Ager C, Wiesenhofer H, Agapiou A, Statheropoulos M, Fuchs D, Ellmerer E, Buszewski B, Amann A. Temporal profiling of human urine VOCs and its potential role under the ruins of collapsed buildings. Toxicol. Mech. Methods. 2012;22:502. doi: 10.3109/15376516.2012.682664. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [23].Agapiou A, Mochalski P, Schmid A, Amann A. Potential applications of volatile organic compounds in safety and security. In: Amann A, Smith D, editors. Volatile Biomarkers: Non-Invasive Diagnosis in Physiology and Medicine. Elsevier; Amsterdam: 2012. (To appear) [Google Scholar]
- [24].Krapf K. Erstellung einer Datenbank von flüchtigen Substanzen, die vom Menschen freigesetzt werden. 9th Int. Exhibition Chemie; Innsbruck, Austria: Leopold Franzens University; 2010. p. 101. [Google Scholar]
- [25].van den Velde S, Quirynen M, van Hee P, van Steenberghe D. Halitosis associated volatiles in breath of healthy subjects. J. Chromatogr. B, Anal. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 2007;853:54–61. doi: 10.1016/j.jchromb.2007.02.048. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [26].Walker V, Mills GA. Urine 4-heptanone: a beta-oxidation product of 2-ethylhexanoic acid from plasticisers. Clin. Chim. Acta. 2001;306:51–61. doi: 10.1016/s0009-8981(01)00390-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [27].Baker RR. Smoke generation inside a burning cigarette: modifying combustion to develop cigarettes that may be less hazardous to health. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2006;32:373–85. [Google Scholar]
- [28].Bratveit M, Hollund BE, Moen BE. Reduced exposure to organic solvents by use of water-based paint systems in car repair shops. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health. 2004;77:31–8. doi: 10.1007/s00420-003-0483-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [29].Turner C, Spanel P, Smith D. A longitudinal study of methanol in the exhaled breath of 30 healthy volunteers using selected ion flow tube mass spectrometry, SIFT-MS. Physiol. Meas. 2006;27:637–48. doi: 10.1088/0967-3334/27/7/007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [30].Smith D, Wang TS, Spanel P. On-line, simultaneous quantification of ethanol, some metabolites and water vapour in breath following the ingestion of alcohol. Physiol. Meas. 2002;23:477–89. doi: 10.1088/0967-3334/23/3/301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [31].Diskin AM, Spanel P, Smith D. Time variation of ammonia, acetone, isoprene and ethanol in breath: a quantitative SIFT-MS study over 30 days. Physiol. Meas. 2003;24:107–19. doi: 10.1088/0967-3334/24/1/308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [32].King J, Mochalski P, Kupferthaler A, Unterkofler K, Koc H, Filipiak W, Teschl S, Hinterhuber H, Amann A. Dynamic profiles of volatile organic compounds in exhaled breath as determined by a coupled PTR-MS/GC-MS study. Physiol. Meas. 2010;31:1169–84. doi: 10.1088/0967-3334/31/9/008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [33].Miekisch W, Schubert JK, Noeldge-Schomburg GF. Diagnostic potential of breath analysis—focus on volatile organic compounds. Clin. Chim. Acta. 2004;347:25–39. doi: 10.1016/j.cccn.2004.04.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [34].Suarez F, Springfield J, Furne J, Levitt M. Differentiation of mouth versus gut as site of origin of odoriferous breath gases after garlic ingestion. Am. J. Physiol. 1999;276:G425–30. doi: 10.1152/ajpgi.1999.276.2.G425. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [35].Spanel P, Smith D. A selected ion flow tube study of the reactions of NO +and O-2(+) ions with some organic molecules: the potential for trace gas analysis of air. J. Chem. Phys. 1996;104:1893–9. [Google Scholar]
- [36].Abbott SM, Elder JB, Spanel P, Smith D. Quantification of acetonitrile in exhaled breath and urinary headspace using selected ion flow tube mass spectrometry. Int. J. Mass Spectrom. 2003;228:655–65. [Google Scholar]
- [37].Pinggera GM, Lirk P, Bodogri F, Herwig R, Steckel-Berger G, Bartsch G, Rieder J. Urinary acetonitrile concentrations correlate with recent smoking behaviour. BJU Int. 2005;95:306–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05288.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [38].Mochalski P, Wzorek B, Sliwka I, Amann A. Suitability of different polymer bags for storage of volatile sulphur compounds relevant to breath analysis. J. Chromatogr. B, Anal. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 2009;877:189–96. doi: 10.1016/j.jchromb.2008.12.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [39].Kalapos MP. On the mammalian acetone metabolism: from chemistry to clinical implications. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 2003;1621:122–39. doi: 10.1016/s0304-4165(03)00051-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [40].Righettoni M, Tricoli A, Pratsinis SE. Si:WO(3) sensors for highly selective detection of acetone for easy diagnosis of diabetes by breath analysis. Anal. Chem. 2010;82:3581–7. doi: 10.1021/ac902695n. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [41].Marcondes-Braga FG, Bacal F, Batista GL, Saldiva P, Ayub-Ferreira SM, Issa V, Mangini S, Bocchi EA, Gutz IGR. Exhaled acetone as a new biomarker of heart failure severity. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2011;57:E251. doi: 10.1378/chest.11-2892. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [42].Solga SF, Alkhuraishe A, Cope K, Tabesh A, Clark JM, Torbenson M, Schwartz P, Magnuson T, Diehl AM, Risby TH. Breath biomarkers and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: preliminary observations. Biomarkers. 2006;11:174–83. doi: 10.1080/13547500500421070. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [43].Sehnert SS, Jiang L, Burdick JF, Risby TH. Breath biomarkers for detection of human liver diseases: preliminary study. Biomarkers: Biochem. Indicators Expo. Response Susceptibility Chem. 2002;7:174–87. doi: 10.1080/13547500110118184. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [44].Gelmont D, Stein RA, Mead JF. Isoprene: the main hydrocarbon in human breath. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 1981;99:1456–60. doi: 10.1016/0006-291x(81)90782-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [45].Watson WP, Cottrell L, Zhang D, Golding BT. Metabolism and molecular toxicology of isoprene. Chem. Biol. Interact. 2001;135–6:223–38. doi: 10.1016/s0009-2797(01)00192-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [46].Kushch I, et al. Breath isoprene—aspects of normal physiology related to age, gender and cholesterol profile as determined in a proton transfer reaction mass spectrometry study. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 2008;46:1011–8. doi: 10.1515/CCLM.2008.181. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [47].King J, Koc H, Unterkofler K, Mochalski P, Kupferthaler A, Teschl G, Teschl S, Hinterhuber H, Amann A. Physiological modeling of isoprene dynamics in exhaled breath. J. Theor. Biol. 2010;267:626–37. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2010.09.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [48].King J, Kupferthaler A, Frauscher B, Hackner H, Unterkofler K, Teschl G, Hinterhuber H, Amann A, Hogl B. Measurement of endogenous acetone and isoprene in exhaled breath during sleep. Physiol. Meas. 2012;33:413–28. doi: 10.1088/0967-3334/33/3/413. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [49].King J, Kupferthaler A, Unterkofler K, Koc H, Teschl S, Teschl G, Miekisch W, Schubert J, Hinterhuber H, Amann A. Isoprene and acetone concentration profiles during exercise on an ergometer. J. Breath Res. 2009;3:027006. doi: 10.1088/1752-7155/3/2/027006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [50].King J, Mochalski P, Unterkofler K, Teschl G, Klieber M, Stein M, Amann A, Baumann M. Breath isoprene: muscle dystrophy patients support the concept of a pool of isoprene in the periphery of the human body. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2012;423:526. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2012.05.159. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [51].McGrath LT, Patrick R, Silke B. Breath isoprene in patients with heart failure. Eur. J. Heart Fail. 2001;3:423–7. doi: 10.1016/s1388-9842(01)00128-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [52].Koc H, King J, Teschl G, Unterkofler K, Teschl S, Mochalski P, Hinterhuber H, Amann A. The role of mathematical modeling in VOC analysis using isoprene as a prototypic example. J. Breath Res. 2011;5:037102. doi: 10.1088/1752-7155/5/3/037102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [53].Mochalski P, King J, Kupferthaler A, Unterkofler K, Hinterhuber H, Amann A. Measurement of isoprene solubility in water, human blood and plasma by multiple headspace extraction gas chromatography coupled with solid phase microextraction. J. Breath Res. 2011;5:046010. doi: 10.1088/1752-7155/5/4/046010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [54].Mochalski P, King J, Kupferthaler A, Unterkofler K, Hinterhuber H, Amann A. Human blood and plasma partition coefficients for C4-C8 n-alkanes, Isoalkanes, and 1-alkenes. Int. J. Toxicol. 2012;31:267–75. doi: 10.1177/1091581812442689. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [55].Statheropoulos M, Agapiou A, Georgiadou A. Analysis of expired air of fasting male monks at Mount Athos. J. Chromatogr. B, Anal. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 2006;832:274–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jchromb.2006.01.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [56].Nosova T, Jousimies-Somer H, Jokelainen K, Heine R, Salaspuro M. Acetaldehyde production and metabolism by human indigenous and probiotic Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium strains. Alcohol Alcohol. 2000;35:561–8. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/35.6.561. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [57].Chen K, Kazachkov M, Yu PH. Effect of aldehydes derived from oxidative deamination and oxidative stress on beta-amyloid aggregation; pathological implications to Alzheimer’s disease. J. Neural Transm. 2007;114:835–9. doi: 10.1007/s00702-007-0697-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [58].Lindinger W, Taucher J, Jordan A, Hansel A, Vogel W. Endogenous production of methanol after the consumption of fruit. Alcohol.-Clin. Exp. Res. 1997;21:939–43. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [59].Fisher JW, Dorman DC, Medinsky MA, Welsch F, Conolly RB. Analysis of respiratory exchange of methanol in the lung of the monkey using a physiological model. Toxicol. Sci. 2000;53:185–93. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/53.2.185. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [60].Michal G. Biochemical Pathways: An Atlas of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. 1st edn Wiley; Hoboken, NJ: 1999. [Google Scholar]
- [61].Thompson GN, Walter JH, Bresson JL, Ford GC, Lyonnet SL, Chalmers RA, Saudubray JM, Leonard JV, Halliday D. Sources of propionate in inborn-errors of propionate metabolism. Metab.-Clin. Exp. 1990;39:1133–7. doi: 10.1016/0026-0495(90)90084-p. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [62].McSweeney PLH, Nursten HE, Urbach G. Flavours and off-flavours in milk and dairy products. In: Fox PF, editor. Advanced Dairy Chemistry. Chapman and Hall; London: 1997. pp. 403–68. [Google Scholar]
- [63].Bills DD, Day EA. Determination of major free fatty acids of Cheddar cheese. J. Dairy Sci. 1964;47:680. [Google Scholar]
- [64].Mayne ST. Antioxidant nutrients and chronic disease: use of biomarkers of exposure and oxidative stress status in epidemiologic research. J. Nutr. 2003;133(Suppl 3):933S–40S. doi: 10.1093/jn/133.3.933S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [65].Scholpp J, Schubert JK, Miekisch W, Geiger K. Breath markers and soluble lipid peroxidation markers in critically ill patients. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 2002;40:587–94. doi: 10.1515/CCLM.2002.101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [66].Poli D, Carbognani P, Corradi M, Goldoni M, Acampa O, Balbi B, Bianchi L, Rusca M, Mutti A. Exhaled volatile organic compounds in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: cross sectional and nested short-term follow-up study. Respir. Res. 2005;6:71. doi: 10.1186/1465-9921-6-71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [67].Pyo JS, Ju HK, Park JH, Kwon SW. Determination of volatile biomarkers for apoptosis and necrosis by solid-phase microextraction-gas chromatography/mass spectrometry: a pharmacometabolomic approach to cisplatin’s cytotoxicity to human lung cancer cell lines. J. Chromatogr. B, Anal. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 2008;876:170–4. doi: 10.1016/j.jchromb.2008.10.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [68].Gaspar EM, Lucena AF, Duro da Costa J, Chaves das Neves H. Organic metabolites in exhaled human breath–a multivariate approach for identification of biomarkers in lung disorders. J. Chromatogr. A. 2009;1216:2749–56. doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2008.10.125. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [69].Miekisch W, Schubert JK, Vagts DA, Geiger K. Analysis of volatile disease markers in blood. Clin. Chem. 2001;47:1053–60. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [70].Tangerman A. Measurement and biological significance of the volatile sulfur compounds hydrogen sulfide, methanethiol and dimethyl sulfide in various biological matrices. J. Chromatogr. B, Anal. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 2009;877:3366–77. doi: 10.1016/j.jchromb.2009.05.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [71].Levitt MD, Furne J, Springfield J, Suarez F, DeMaster E. Detoxification of hydrogen sulfide and methanethiol in the cecal mucosa. J. Clin. Invest. 1999;104:1107–14. doi: 10.1172/JCI7712. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [72].Furne J, Springfield J, Koenig T, DeMaster E, Levitt MD. Oxidation of hydrogen sulfide and methanethiol to thiosulfate by rat tissues: a specialized function of the colonic mucosa. Biochem. Pharmacol. 2001;62:255–9. doi: 10.1016/s0006-2952(01)00657-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [73].Amarita F, Fernandez-Espla D, Requena T, Pelaez C. Conversion of methionine to methional by Lactococcus lactis. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2001;204:189–95. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2001.tb10884.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [74].Troccaz M, Benattia F, Borchard G, Clark AJ. Properties of recombinant staphylococcus haemolyticus cystathionine,beta-Lyase (metC) and its potential role in the generation of volatile thiols in axillary malodor. Chem. Biodivers. 2008;5:2372–85. doi: 10.1002/cbdv.200890202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [75].Scheepers PT, Konings J, Demirel G, Gaga EO, Anzion R, Peer PG, Dogeroglu T, Ornektekin S, van Doorn W. Determination of exposure to benzene, toluene and xylenes in Turkish primary school children by analysis of breath and by environmental passive sampling. Sci. Total Environ. 2010;408:4863–70. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.06.037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [76].Brugnone F, Perbellini L, Faccini GB, Pasini F, Maranelli G, Romeo L, Gobbi M, Zedde A. Breath and blood levels of benzene, toluene, cumene and styrene in non-occupational exposure. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health. 1989;61:303–11. doi: 10.1007/BF00409385. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [77].Ghittori S, Alessio A, Negri S, Maestri L, Zadra P, Imbriani M. A field method for sampling toluene in end-exhaled air, as a biomarker of occupational exposure: correlation with other exposure indices. Ind. Health. 2004;42:226–34. doi: 10.2486/indhealth.42.226. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [78].Weisel CP. Benzene exposure: an overview of monitoring methods and their findings. Chem. Biol. Interact. 2010;184:58–66. doi: 10.1016/j.cbi.2009.12.030. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [79].Brugnone F, Perbellini L, Romeo L, Bianchin M, Tonello A, Pianalto G, Zambon D, Zanon G. Benzene in environmental air and human blood. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health. 1998;71:554–9. doi: 10.1007/s004200050323. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [80].Jensen B, Wolkoff P, Wilkins CK. Characterization of linoleum 2. preliminary odor evaluation. Indoor Air-Int. J. Indoor Air Qual. Clim. 1995;5:44–49. [Google Scholar]
- [81].Yu C, Crump D. A review of the emission of VOCs from polymeric materials used in buildings. Build. Env. 1998;33:357–74. [Google Scholar]
- [82].Manaha SE. Environmental Chemistry. 5th edn Lewis; Boca Raton, FL: 1990. pp. 414–6. [Google Scholar]
- [83].UIlrich F, Grosch W. Identification of the most intense volatile flavour compounds formed during autoxidation of linoleic acid. Zeitschrift Lebens. Forschung. 1987;184:277–82. [Google Scholar]
- [84].Uhde E, Salthammer T. Impact of reaction products from building materials and furnishings on indoor air quality—a review of recent advances in indoor chemistry. Atmos. Environ. 2007;41:3111–28. [Google Scholar]
- [85].Westerholm RN, Alsberg TE, Frommelin AB, Strandell ME, Rannug U, Winquist L, Grigoriadis V, Egeback KE. Effect of fuel polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon content on the emissions of polycyclic aromatic-hydrocarbons and other mutagenic substances from a gasoline-fueled automobile. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1988;22:925–30. doi: 10.1021/es00173a010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [86].Ernstgard L, Shibata E, Johanson G. Uptake and disposition of inhaled methanol vapor in humans. Toxicol. Sci. 2005;88:30–38. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfi281. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [87].Burdock GA, editor. Fenaroli’s Handbook of Flavor Ingredients. 5th edn CRC Press; London: 2005. [Google Scholar]
- [88].Yannai S. Dictionary of Food Compounds with CD-ROM. Additives, Flavors, and Ingredients. Chapman and Hall/CRC Press; London: 2004. p. 1764. [Google Scholar]
- [89].Ziegler H. Flavourings. Production, Composition, Applications, Regulations. 2 edn Wiley; Weinheim: 2007. [Google Scholar]
- [90].Genovese A, Gambuti A, Piombino P, Moio L. Sensory properties and aroma compounds of sweet Fiano wine. Food Chem. 2007;103:1228–36. [Google Scholar]
- [91].Zhao MM, Sun WZ, Zhao QZ, Zhao HF, Yang B. Volatile compounds of Cantonese sausage released at different stages of processing and storage. Food Chem. 2010;121:319–25. [Google Scholar]
- [92].Zoller O, Sager F, Reinhard H. Furan in food: headspace method and product survey. Food Addit. Contam. 2007;24(Suppl 1):91–107. doi: 10.1080/02652030701447389. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [93].Kaushik G, Kaushik T, Khanduja S, Pathak CM, Khanduja KL. Cigarette smoke condensate promotes cell proliferation through disturbance in cellular redox homeostasis of transformed lung epithelial type-II cells. Cancer Lett. 2008;270:120–31. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2008.04.039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [94].Janasik B, Jakubowski M, Jalowiecki P. Excretion of unchanged volatile organic compounds (toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene and mesitylene) in urine as result of experimental human volunteer exposure. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health. 2008;81:443–9. doi: 10.1007/s00420-007-0233-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [95].Ducos P, Berode M, Francin JM, Arnoux C, Lefevre C. Biological monitoring of exposure to solvents using the chemical itself in urine: application to toluene. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health. 2008;81:273–84. doi: 10.1007/s00420-007-0210-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]