Comparison of two methods for exhaled breath condensate collection

Background:  Exhaled breath condensate (EBC) is a noninvasive method to obtain samples from fluids lining the respiratory surfaces. Even though various methods and devices are now available, the relative efficiency of these methods for recovering airway mediators and characterizing EBC has not been...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Allergy (Copenhagen) 2006-08, Vol.61 (8), p.1016-1018
Main Authors: Soyer, O. U., Dizdar, E. A., Keskin, O., Lilly, C., Kalayci, O.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Breath Tests - instrumentation
Breath Tests - methods
Chemokine CCL11
Chemokines, CC - analysis
ECoScreen
eotaxin
exhaled breath condensate
Female
Humans
Hydrogen-Ion Concentration
leukotriene
Leukotrienes - analysis
Male
RTubeTM
Specimen Handling - instrumentation
Specimen Handling - methods
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background:  Exhaled breath condensate (EBC) is a noninvasive method to obtain samples from fluids lining the respiratory surfaces. Even though various methods and devices are now available, the relative efficiency of these methods for recovering airway mediators and characterizing EBC has not been established. Aim:  To compare the volume, pH, lipid mediator, and protein concentrations in EBCs collected by two commonly used commercially available devices, RTubeTM and ECoScreen. Methods:  Exhaled breath condensates were obtained consecutively using the RTubeTM and ECoScreen methods from 30 healthy, nonallergic adults. Samples were immediately placed on dry ice after collection. pH was measured after argon deaeration. Cysteinyl leukotrienes (cys‐LTs) were measured as a representative lipid mediator and eotaxin as the protein mediator by using enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay. Results:  The mean volume of samples obtained with ECoScreen (1880 ± 116 μl) was significantly higher than that obtained with RTubeTM (1405 ± 82 μl) (P 
ISSN:0105-4538
1398-9995
DOI:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2006.01064.x