Open AccessEfficacy of two breath condensers
Author(s) -
Davidsson A.,
Schmekel B.
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
journal of clinical laboratory analysis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.536
H-Index - 50
eISSN - 1098-2825
pISSN - 0887-8013
DOI - 10.1002/jcla.20389
Subject(s) - myeloperoxidase , chemistry , hypochlorous acid , chlorine , chromatography , exhaled breath condensate , bovine serum albumin , biochemistry , medicine , organic chemistry , asthma , inflammation
Background : Examination of Exhaled Breath Condensate has been suggested to give information about inflammatory airway diseases. Objectives : The aim was to compare efficacy and variability in gain of two commercially available exhaled breath condensers, ECoScreen ® and RTube™ in an in vitro set up. Methods : Test fluids containing myeloperoxidase (MPO) or human neutrophil lipocalin (HNL) in addition to saline and bovine serum albumin were nebulized and aerosols were transferred by a servo ventilator to either of the two condensers. Analyses of MPO, HNL, or chlorine were done by means of ELISA, RIA, or a modified adsorbed organic halogen technique (AOX), respectively. Results : Recoveries of HNL were higher when using ECoScreen than RTube ( P <0.05). In contrast, there were no significant differences between the two condensers in recoveries of MPO or chlorine. The spread of data was wide regarding all tested compounds. Conclusion : Variability in gain was large and ECoScreen was more efficacious then RTube in condensing the tested solutes of HNL, but not those of MPO or chlorine J. Clin. Lab. Anal. 24:219–223, 2010. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.