Over the last few years, breath analysis for the routine monitoring of metabolic disorders has attracted a considerable amount of scientific interest, especially since breath sampling is a non‐invasive technique, totally painless and agreeable to patients. The investigation of human breath samples with various analytical methods has shown a correlation between the concentration patterns of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and the occurrence of certain diseases. It has been demonstrated that modern analytical instruments allow the determination of many compounds found in human breath both in normal and anomalous concentrations. The composition of exhaled breath in patients with, for example, lung cancer, inflammatory lung disease, hepatic or renal dysfunction and diabetes contains valuable information. Furthermore, the detection and quantification of oxidative stress, and its monitoring during surgery based on composition of exhaled breath, have made considerable progress. This paper gives an overview of the analytical techniques used for sample collection, preconcentration and analysis of human breath composition. The diagnostic potential of different disease‐marking substances in human breath for a selection of diseases and the clinical applications of breath analysis are discussed. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Background: Lung cancer is one of the leading causes of death in Europe and the western world. At present, diagnosis of lung cancer very often happens late in the course of the disease since inexpensive, non-invasive and sufficiently sensitive and specific screening methods are not available. Even though the CT diagnostic methods are good, it must be assured that "screening benefit outweighs risk, across all individuals screened, not only those with lung cancer". An early non-invasive diagnosis of lung cancer would improve prognosis and enlarge treatment options. Analysis of exhaled breath would be an ideal diagnostic method, since it is non-invasive and totally painless. Methods: Exhaled breath and inhaled room air samples were analyzed using proton transfer reaction mass spectrometry (PTR-MS) and solid phase microextraction with subsequent gas chromatography mass spectrometry (SPME-GCMS). For the PTR-MS measurements, 220 lung cancer patients and 441 healthy volunteers were recruited. For the GCMS measurements, we collected samples from 65 lung cancer patients and 31 healthy volunteers. Lung cancer patients were in different disease stages and under treatment with different regimes. Mixed expiratory and indoor air samples were collected in Tedlar bags, and either analyzed directly by PTR-MS or transferred to glass vials and analyzed by gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GCMS). Only those measurements of compounds were considered, which showed at least a 15% higher concentration in exhaled breath than in indoor air. Compounds related to smoking behavior such as acetonitrile and benzene were not used to differentiate between lung cancer patients and healthy volunteers. Results: Isoprene, acetone and methanol are compounds appearing in everybody's exhaled breath. These three main compounds of exhaled breath show slightly lower concentrations in lung cancer patients as compared to healthy volunteers (p < 0.01 for isoprene and acetone, p = 0.011 for methanol; PTR-MS measurements). A comparison of the GCMS-results of 65 lung cancer patients with those of 31 healthy volunteers revealed differences in concentration for more than 50 compounds. Sensitivity for detection of lung cancer patients based on presence of (one of) 4 different compounds not arising in exhaled breath of healthy volunteers was 52% with a specificity of 100%. Using 15 (or 21) different compounds for distinction, sensitivity was 71% (80%) with a specificity of 100%. Potential marker compounds are alcohols, aldehydes, ketones and hydrocarbons. Conclusion: GCMS-SPME is a relatively insensitive method. Hence compounds not appearing in exhaled breath of healthy volunteers may be below the limit of detection (LOD). PTR-MS, on the other hand, does not need preconcentration and gives much more reliable quantitative results then GCMS-SPME. The shortcoming of PTR-MS is that it cannot identify compounds with certainty. Hence SPME-GCMS and PTR-MS complement each other, each method having its particular advantages and disadvantages. Exhaled breath analysis is promising to become a future non-invasive lung cancer screening method. In order to proceed towards this goal, precise identification of compounds observed in exhaled breath of lung cancer patients is necessary. Comparison with compounds released from lung cancer cell cultures, and additional information on exhaled breath composition in other cancer forms will be important.

Analysis of exhaled breath is a promising diagnostic method. Sampling of exhaled breath is non-invasive and can be performed as often as considered desirable. There are indications that the concentration and presence of certain of volatile compounds in exhaled breath of lung cancer patients is different from concentrations in healthy volunteers. This might lead to a future diagnostic test for lung cancer. Exhaled breath samples from 65 patients with different stages of lung cancer and undergoing different treatment regimes were analysed. Mixed expiratory and indoor air samples were collected. Solid phase microextraction (SPME) with carboxen/polydimethylsiloxane (CAR/PDMS) sorbent was applied. Compounds were analysed by means of gas chromatography (GC) and mass spectrometry (MS). The method we used allowed identification with the spectral library of 103 compounds showing at least 15% higher concentration in exhaled breath than in inhaled air. Among those 103 compounds, 84 were confirmed by determination of the retention time using standards based on the respective pure compound. Approximately, one third of the compounds detected were hydrocarbons. We found aromatic hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, esters, ethers, sulfur compounds, nitrogen-containing compounds and halogenated compounds. Acetonitrile and benzene were two of 10 compounds which correlated with smoking behaviour. A comparison of results from cancer patients with those of 31 healthy volunteers revealed differences in the concentration and presence of certain compounds. The sensitivity for detection of lung cancer patients based on eight different compounds not seen in exhaled breath of healthy volunteers was 51% and the specificity was 100%. These eight potential markers for detection of lung cancer are 1-propanol, 2-butanone, 3-butyn-2-ol, benzaldehyde, 2-methyl-pentane, 3-methyl-pentane, n-pentane and n-hexane. SPME is a relatively insensitive method and compounds not observed in exhaled breath may be present at a concentration lower than LOD. The main achievement of the present work is the validated identification of compounds observed in exhaled breath of lung cancer patients. This identification is indispensible for future work on the biochemical sources of these compounds and their metabolic pathways.

In this work, a chromatographic method for identification of volatile organic compounds was compared with canine recognition. Gas chromatography and mass spectrometry (GC–TOF MS) were used for determination of concentrations of trace gases present in human breath. The technique enables rapid determination of compounds in human breath, at the parts per billion level. Linear correlations were from 0.83–234.05 ppb, the limit of detection was the range 0.31–0.75 ppb, and precision, expressed as relative standard deviation (RSD), was less than 10.00 %. Moreover, trained dogs are able to discriminate breath samples of patients with diagnosed cancer. We found a positive correlation between dog indications and the ethyl acetate and 2-pentanone content of breath (r = 0.85 and r = 0.97, respectively). The methods presented for detection of lung cancer markers in exhaled air could be used as a potential non-invasive tool for screening. In addition, the canine method is relatively simple and inexpensive in comparison with chromatography.

Lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma are inflammatory diseases that have risen worldwide, posing a major public health issue, encompassing not only physical and psychological morbidity and mortality, but also incurring significant societal costs. The leading cause of death worldwide by cancer is that of the lung, which, in large part, is a result of the disease often not being detected until a late stage. Although COPD and asthma are conditions with considerably lower mortality, they are extremely distressful to people and involve high healthcare overheads. Moreover, for these diseases, diagnostic methods are not only costly but are also invasive, thereby adding to people’s stress. It has been appreciated for many decades that the analysis of trace volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in exhaled breath could potentially provide cheaper, rapid, and non-invasive screening procedures to diagnose and monitor the above diseases of the lung. However, after decades of research associated with breath biomarker discovery, no breath VOC tests are clinically available. Reasons for this include the little consensus as to which breath volatiles (or pattern of volatiles) can be used to discriminate people with lung diseases, and our limited understanding of the biological origin of the identified VOCs. Lung disease diagnosis using breath VOCs is challenging. Nevertheless, the numerous studies of breath volatiles and lung disease provide guidance as to what volatiles need further investigation for use in differential diagnosis, highlight the urgent need for non-invasive clinical breath tests, illustrate the way forward for future studies, and provide significant guidance to achieve the goal of developing non-invasive diagnostic tests for lung disease. This review provides an overview of these issues from evaluating key studies that have been undertaken in the years 2010–2019, in order to present objective and comprehensive updated information that presents the progress that has been made in this field. The potential of this approach is highlighted, while strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats are discussed. This review will be of interest to chemists, biologists, medical doctors and researchers involved in the development of analytical instruments for breath diagnosis.