Article (Scientific journals)
Evaluating off-line exhaled breath sampling techniques: a comparative study of practices for clinical implementation.
Massenet, Thibault; Bosman, Pauline; Schleich, Florence et al.
2026In Journal of Breath Research, 20 (2), p. 026005
Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi
 

Files


Full Text
Massenet_2026_J._Breath_Res._20_026005.pdf
Embargo Until 01/Oct/2026 - Publisher postprint (2.57 MB)
Request a copy
Annexes
jbrae541bsupp1.pdf
Embargo Until 01/Oct/2026 (4.41 MB)
Request a copy

All documents in ORBi are protected by a user license.

Send to



Details



Keywords :
GC × GC-TOFMS; breath sampling; breathomics; peppermint protocols; Volatile Organic Compounds; Humans; Breath Tests/methods; Breath Tests/instrumentation; Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry/methods; Reproducibility of Results; Volatile Organic Compounds/analysis; Exhalation
Abstract :
[en] Exhaled breath analysis represents a promising non-invasive approach for disease monitoring through volatile organic compounds (VOCs) detection. However, the lack of standardized sampling methods do not enable direct clinical translation. This study compared three widely used offline breath sampling techniques (Tedlar® bags, BioVOC-2®, and ReCIVA®) using the established peppermint benchmarking protocol and comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry (GC × GC-MS). Seven healthy participants completed the peppermint experiment, with breath samples collected at multiple time points following capsule ingestion. Washout curves for targeted terpenoid compounds were analyzed to assess analytical performance, reproducibility, and background contamination across devices. Clinical feasibility was evaluated through focus groups with clinicians, researchers, and study participants. Tedlar® bags demonstrated reliable performance with lowest overall pooled relative standard deviations, though sensitive to exogenous contamination. ReCIVA® showed higher overall variability, superior selectivity and reduced background interference compared to Tedlar® bags (p< 0.01). However, ReCIVA® showed higher complexity, cost, reduced comfort and potential for saliva contamination during extended sampling. BioVOC-2® offered operational simplicity but was limited by small sampling volume (129 ml) reducing its sensitivity and manual handling variability. No single device emerged as universally optimal. Tedlar® bags, when accompanied by rigorous standard operating procedures, remain most suitable for large-scale studies, BioVOC-2® for rapid targeted screening, and ReCIVA® for controlled research requiring high selectivity. Successful clinical implementation will require balancing analytical performance with practical considerations including patient comfort, cost-effectiveness, and workflow integration. These findings support ongoing standardization efforts within the breathomics community and extend peppermint database for exhaled breath sampling.
Disciplines :
Chemistry
Author, co-author :
Massenet, Thibault  ;  Université de Liège - ULiège > Molecular Systems (MolSys)
Bosman, Pauline;  Laboratoire des Sciences Analytiques, Bioanalytiques et Miniaturisation, UMR 8231 CBI CNRS, ESPCI Paris, PSL Université, Paris, France
Schleich, Florence  ;  Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des Sciences de l'activité physique et de la réadaptation > Physiologie humaine et physiologie de l'effort physique
Guiot, Julien  ;  Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences cliniques > Pneumologie - Allergologie
Gridelet, Grégory ;  Université de Liège - ULiège > Département de chimie (sciences)
Henket, Monique ;  Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège - CHU > > Service de pneumologie - allergologie
Hody, Stéphanie  ;  Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des Sciences de l'activité physique et de la réadaptation > Physiologie humaine et physiologie de l'effort physique
Rosu, Adeline  ;  Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences cliniques > Pneumologie - Allergologie
Guissard, Françoise ;  Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège - CHU > > Service de pneumologie - allergologie
Siddiqui, Salman;  National Heart and Lung Institute (NHLI), Imperial NIHR Respiratory Biomedical Research Centre, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
Vial, Jérôme ;  Laboratoire des Sciences Analytiques, Bioanalytiques et Miniaturisation, UMR 8231 CBI CNRS, ESPCI Paris, PSL Université, Paris, France
Focant, Jean-François  ;  Université de Liège - ULiège > Département de chimie (sciences) > Chimie analytique, organique et biologique
Stefanuto, Pierre-Hugues  ;  Université de Liège - ULiège > Département de chimie (sciences)
More authors (3 more) Less
Language :
English
Title :
Evaluating off-line exhaled breath sampling techniques: a comparative study of practices for clinical implementation.
Publication date :
31 March 2026
Journal title :
Journal of Breath Research
ISSN :
1752-7155
eISSN :
1752-7163
Publisher :
IOP Publishing, England
Volume :
20
Issue :
2
Pages :
026005
Peer reviewed :
Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi
Funders :
Fondation Léon Fredericq
CHU Liège - Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège
F.R.S.-FNRS - Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique
Funding text :
Fonds d’Investissement de Recherche Scientifique du Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège
Available on ORBi :
since 20 April 2026

Statistics


Number of views
43 (1 by ULiège)
Number of downloads
0 (0 by ULiège)

Scopus citations®
 
0
Scopus citations®
without self-citations
0
OpenCitations
 
0
OpenAlex citations
 
0

Bibliography


Similar publications



Contact ORBi