Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41340225›Full record

ArticleThoracic research and practice2025

The Development of Laboratory-made NTD Sensor Systems for the Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Synthetic Breath Samples.

Tugberk Nail Dizdas, Levent Pelit

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Thoracic research and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Tugberk Nail DizdasEge University Translational Pulmonary Research Center (EgeSAM), İzmir, Türkiye.
Levent PelitEge University Translational Pulmonary Research Center (EgeSAM), İzmir, Türkiye.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn recent years, the analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) has emerged as a highly attractive sample preparation method due to its ease of application to a wide range of samples. These techniques, which significantly increase the sensitivity of the analysis by reducing the interference effect, especially in biological samples containing many components, have the possibility of being applied in many ways. MATERIAL AND

methodsThe NTD systems used in the study were made using four different conductive polymers. Surface and physical characterization of these polymers prepared by electropolymerization were investigated using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) and thermogravimetric analysis. Following surface characterization, the responses of NTDs prepared with each polymer to BTEX solutions were compared and the polymer with the best response was selected. Subsequently, the sampling technique (active and passive), adsorption temperature, adsorption time and desorption time were optimised. Finally, the analytical properties of the method developed for BTEX analysis in synthetic breath samples were determined using the optimum parameters obtained from the optimisation studies.

resultsSEM images of the prepared NTDs showed that the polymers obtained were on porous surfaces, indicating that the lab-made NTDs had suitable properties for adsorption. FTIR spectra obtained with the attenuated total reflectance (ATR) probe confirmed the functional groups in the existing structures and supported the chemical properties of the structures by confirming that the targeted polymers were obtained. FTIR spectra obtained with the ATR probe confirmed the functional groups in the existing structures and supported the chemical properties of the structures by confirming that the targeted polymers were obtained. When the effects of four different polymers (polyaniline, polypyrrole, polythiophene and polyfuran) prepared in the study were examined on the responses of BTEX, it was seen that polyaniline gave the most effective response. When it comes to optimizing the experimental operating conditions, firstly the effects of active and passive sampling on BTEX responses were investigated (Figure 1).The results showed that passive sampling had better effect on analyte signals than active sampling. Optimizing the adsorption temperature revealed that an adsorption temperature of 45 °C provided the optimal response. Lower adsorption temperatures reduce analyte interaction with the polymer, while higher temperatures facilitate desorption from the surface, reducing adsorption efficiency. Therefore, 45 °C was determined to be the ideal value for adsorption. On the other hand, adsorption time is also a crucial parameter for establishing the necessary analyte-polymer balance. A 20-minute adsorption process is sufficient for this purpose. Longer adsorption processes do not result in a positive response due to surface saturation, but they do experience a loss of efficiency due to the loss of analytes from the surface due to environmental conditions. The final parameter optimized was the desorption time, which corresponds to the time spent by NTDs in the gas chromatography injection block. The optimum condition for this value was determined to be 4 min.

conclusionBTEX compounds are important in both environmental and biological samples. The PANI-based NTDs prepared in this study were successfully applied in these analyses in synthetic breath media. Data obtained through optimization of experimental conditions demonstrated that these analyses can be successfully applied in synthetic breath media at concentrations ranging from 89 to 395 µg/m

Indexed as

breath analysisgas chromatographyNeedle trap devicessample preparation

Identifiers

PMID41340225
PMCPMC12673183

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.