ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Evolution of Environmental Exposure Science: Using Breath-Borne Biomarkers for “Discovery” of the Human Exposome
My Activity
  • Free to Read
Feature

Evolution of Environmental Exposure Science: Using Breath-Borne Biomarkers for “Discovery” of the Human Exposome
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

According to recent research, 70−90% of long-term latency and chronic human disease incidence is attributable to environmental (human exposome) factors through the gene−environment interaction. Environmental exposure science is now embarking on a new “discovery” path for decoding the human exposome using biomarkers in breath and other biological media.

View Author Information
National Exposure Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, United States
Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 27599, United States
Open PDF

Analytical Chemistry

Cite this: Anal. Chem. 2013, 85, 21, 9984–9990
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/ac402306f
Published September 25, 2013

Copyright © 2013 American Chemical Society. This publication is available under these Terms of Use.

This publication is licensed for personal use by The American Chemical Society.

Copyright © 2013 American Chemical Society

Environmental Exposure Science and the Human Exposome

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Recent developments in environmental research have focused on the cumulative effects of the total environment on human metabolism and health state. The fundamental discipline, Exposure Science, is now being established as an academic specialty distinct from toxicology, epidemiology, and biology. (1) Exposure Science has been defined as studying “...human contact with chemical, physical, or biological agents occurring in their environments, (to) advance knowledge of the mechanisms and dynamics of events either causing or preventing adverse health outcomes...” and is considered the “...bedrock for protection of public health”. (2-4) In short, Exposure Science encompasses the study of the external environment’s contributions to the human system as well as the chemicals already present within human biological media; these are collectively referred to as the human exposome. (5, 6) The study of the human exposome is now gaining momentum; for example the European Helix Project is focusing on the “early-life exposome”, the U.S. National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have jointly released a report entitled “Exposure Science in the 21st Century: A vision and strategy” for exploring the links between environment and disease, the NIEHS has established a Center for Exposure Biology at University of California, Berkeley, and the first U.S. Human Exposome Center has recently been funded at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. (7-10)
The general concept of the exposome considers all of the chemicals in the body representing environmental exposures received by an individual over a lifetime, as well as chemical metabolites, metabolic reaction products, byproducts of the microbiome, and systemic response molecules. In short, the exposome represents everything that is “not the genome” in human systems biology. (5, 11-13) However, in contrast to the genome, the exposome fluctuates throughout the human lifetime as it is constantly influenced by changes in the environment, human activities, and the individual’s current metabolism and health state at the molecular, cellular, and organ level of organization representing the overall concept of human systems biology. (14-16) So, why do we care about such a complicated and moving target?
We care because current research is showing that incidence of cancers as well as autoimmune, cardiovascular, pulmonary, and other chronic diseases are not just bad luck but that 70–90% of such human disease is attributable to environmental (human exposome) factors through the gene–environment interaction and the epigenome. (11, 17, 18) This has appeared as a bit of a surprise because the sequencing of the human genome, announced in 2000, and the subsequent associations of function with specific genes were thought to be the final explanation for human disease incidence. (19) Instead, the genome results and expected unambiguous linkages to disease have been elusive. (20-22)
To understand the underlying issue, consider familial relatives such as a grandfather and grandson pair (Figure 1); on average, they have a probability of sharing 25% of the same genetic traits. However, they have very little likelihood of sharing the same exposome because the grandfather has two generations of lifetime exposure head start. Furthermore, only when he and the grandson are collocated as in Figure 1, do they share the same short-term exposures, and even then, they are likely to absorb exogenous chemicals at different rates and process them with different efficiencies. In short, there is little expectation that their exposomes are as similar as their genomes over time and so their long-term health outcomes are much more likely to be different. In contrast, consider contemporary occupants of a locality or other kind of community that have grown-up and lived for a long time in the local environment. If long-term health outcome is indeed driven by the exposome as suggested by the research, then the long times spent in a common local environment should be much more important than whether or not the people are genetically related.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Relatives like the grandfather and grandson share genetic traits, but their environmental lifetime experiences result in very different personal exposomes despite sharing the same exposures for a short time on occasion. Photo Copyright: C. Maureen Pleil.

Targeted Biomarker Research

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This Feature is concerned with strategies for teasing out the constituents of the exposome that are significant for deducing the links between the environment, internal dose, and the apparently random outcomes in human health. The traditional approaches have centered on chemicals known to have engendered adverse health effects and studying linkages between environmental levels and internal doses; these are referred to as “knowledge driven investigations”. Some examples of such methods are the measurements of “benzene in the air vs benzene in the breath” or “chlorpyrifos pesticide in the food vs trichloropyridinol metabolite in the urine”. (23, 24) The gist of these contrasts is to estimate how much of a known hazardous environmental contaminant is getting into the human system, being distributed to target organs and subsequently metabolized, and then trying to use various calculations from animal and in vitro toxicological studies to assign health risk. This is called “targeted” or “bottom-up” research and has served us well in regulating chemicals known to affect public health. (17) The problem is that there are over 1 000 new chemicals introduced into the U.S. environment every year (from consumer products, industrial processes, farming operations, etc.) to join the more than 84 000 chemicals already listed in the Toxic Substances Control Act inventory. (25) Targeted research has only been performed for a few hundred of the presumed most toxic and/or prevalent of these chemicals; there are limited toxicity data of any kind for many of these compounds, and so the toxicological assessment system is becoming overwhelmed. (26-28)
Certainly, performing targeted in vivo research on all potentially toxic chemicals is not practical; the risk assessment community is exploring alternate paths especially for prioritizing chemicals for more detailed study. (29) The newer approaches implement in vitro (cellular/molecular level) and in silico (computational) methods for screening chemicals that promise high-throughput results on the order of thousands of chemicals per year. (30, 31) However, despite an increase in throughput, these methods still fall into the targeted category wherein in vivo experiments concerning systems biology, mode of action (MoA), adverse outcome pathways (AOP), and biochemical reactions are required. (32-34) In short, targeted assessments require prior knowledge which is best developed through discovery without preconceptions.

Discovery Biomarker Research

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Targeted toxicity testing is unquestionably valuable for delineating specific risks from specific compounds based on prior knowledge. The inverse procedure, wherein we try to discover which environmental chemicals, human metabolites, and endogenous biological compounds are related to preclinical and ultimately adverse effects, requires a different strategy. The study of “exposure biology” is part of the broader discipline of Exposure Science that encompasses the discovery aspects and has been described as follows:

“Epidemiologists wait for people to die or get sick before they can study them. Exposure biology connects exposures to hazardous chemicals with early effects of these exposures inside the body.” (Stephen Rappaport, Director, Center for Exposure Biology, University of California, Berkeley).

The immediacy of the preclinical effect reduces a great deal of uncertainty in making the connections to long-term latency disease occurrence. This prompts us to discover what biomarker patterns are prospective signs of disease and/or retrospective signs of exposure. In contrast to in vitro and in silico strategies, discovery generally requires samples from intact biological systems (human, mouse, rat, etc.). We are also working on discovery analyses using cultured bacteria representing the human microbiome which is technically in vitro; however, this still represents intact, albeit very small, organisms. We note that discovery methods do not necessarily preempt high-throughput analysis for different chemicals because we are looking at large groups of biological compounds simultaneously.
So, how does exposome discovery actually work? In Figure 2, we show a conceptual diagram contrasting the classical concept of targeted and discovery approaches to Exposure Science. In the targeted strategy, we start with a knowledge base of specific hazardous exogenous chemicals and then look for them in environmental media such as food, air, and water to determine what the potential of exposures could be. In the discovery approach, we start without preconceived notions about chemicals and just begin to analyze human biofluids (e.g., blood, breath, urine) for as many chemicals as we can. Unlike discovery within the genetics community where a single analytical platform such as a DNA microarray or “Affy chip” (Affymetrix, Santa Clara CA) exists that can give results from tens of thousands of probes for all specific sequences of interest simultaneously, (35) there is no single chemical analytical system (to date) that can analyze every kind of chemical at once.

Figure 2

Figure 2. The diagram shows the classical concepts of bottom-up, targeted analysis (left triangle) in contrast to top-down discovery analysis (right triangle) for assessing the effects on the human community or subpopulation (center). Center image photo credit: Shuttershock. Targeted analysis seeks out specific compounds of exposure in the environment from multiple sources (food, air, water, dust, etc.) whereas discovery analysis starts with human biological media (blood, breath, urine, etc.) to look for all possible compounds and then narrow them down to those with potential exposure to health linkages.

This classical concept described in Figure 2 is not necessarily practical or applicable in all cases. Most discovery experiments are targeted to some extent in that different compound types require different analytical approaches. Most targeted experiments fall partially into the discovery arena because when we target a group of compounds, we can subsequently “discover” that some turn out to be inconsequential for the particular hypothesis. Also, discovery and targeted analyses can be done within the same sample type; that is we can discover many compounds in exhaled breath and then subsequently target an important subset within breath samples without invoking the environment at all. Conversely, we can perform discovery experiments using environmental media samples to deduce what may be worthwhile targeting for assessing potential environmental toxicity in air, water, or food.
Exposome discovery requires a wide array of analytical techniques and sample processing methods to accommodate the different types and categories of biochemicals in the human body. We could not expect to measure small reactive compounds, nonpolar exogenous chemicals, endogenous polar compounds, and proteins all with the same methods. The best we can do is to pick our battles in a stratified fashion; gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) for volatiles, liquid chromatography mass–spectrometry (LC–MS) for larger polar molecules, immunochemistry for proteins, etc. with appropriate sample collection, storage, and preparation to accommodate the medium (blood, breath, or urine). Similarly, we have the same practical issues for environmental samples, and as such, the strict division between discovery and targeted analysis is always blurred to some extent.

Environment Wide Association Study (EWAS) and Case-Control Discovery

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The recent article by Patel et al. was heralded as a true exposome discovery experiment conducted using a genome-wide association study (GWAS) approach. (36) Dubbed “EWAS” wherein the word “environment” replaces “genome”, this style of research uses chemical and environmental biomarkers as the independent variables instead of the loci from sequenced genetic samples. (37) Patel et al. used 266 unique environmental factors from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) as potential associations with clinical status of diabetes mellitus as indicated by fasting blood sugar levels >126 mg/dL. They found significant positive associations with the pesticide derivative heptachlor epoxide, the vitamin γ-tocopherol, and polychlorinated biphenyls and protective factors associated with β-carotenes. As discussed above, this prototype exposome discovery experiment can also be considered to be targeted to some extent in that the 266 factors used were initially chosen by CDC to accommodate their sampling and analytical strategies and so do not represent all compounds available in the biological media. Regardless of these finer distinctions, such exposome discovery studies can be used to develop hypotheses as to the causes of different diseases and perhaps even provide preclinical evidence as to early stage susceptibility.
More prospective approaches have been performed on a smaller scale over the years under the umbrella of “case-control” studies. Herein, specific sets of compounds are chosen a priori based on available instrumentation and access to biological media, and then differences in their concentration patterns between a group of individuals with a diagnosed illness and a group of matched control subjects are investigated. For example, there have been a number of exhaled breath studies for trying to discern preclinical markers for lung cancer. This is of particular importance as early detection radically improves survival rate but symptoms are often mild or ambiguous during early stages of the cancer and so no specific imaging or biopsies are indicated. (38-41) For lung cancer especially, it seems that there would be some exhaled gas-phase chemicals that would give a clear early warning, but discovering what these chemicals could be is as yet difficult.
In both cases, the approaches have a discovery nature in that we do not make assumptions but rather let the chips (chemicals) fall where they may. The problem with such biomarker strategies is generalizability and repeatability. Often, an algorithm based on a pattern of biomarkers is able to separate the cases from the controls in the current experiment only to fail when the experiment is repeated with different subjects. This is often the case when there are confounding environmental factors or when the statistical approach is underpowered resulting in what is referred to as “voodoo correlations” wherein random chance yields a result that is not repeatable. (42, 43) The solution is to expand our horizons to as many different kinds of chemicals as possible, and then to do our statistical homework to make sure we get solid and repeatable results. In the remainder of this Feature, we focus on using exhaled breath, but the general approaches work just as well for other biological media such as blood and urine.

Biomarkers in Exhaled Breath Condensate (EBC) and Aerosols (EBA)

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The “Holy Grail” in preventative medicine is diagnosing early disease state before overt symptoms and irreversible effects of the disease occur. Similarly, figuring out which chemicals in the environment might be related to preclinical effects or perturbations in the human metabolism is the ultimate goal for exposure science. Exploiting breath as the biological fluid for analysis (rather than blood or urine) is attractive because sampling is noninvasive, can be repeated frequently, and there is essentially an unlimited supply. Basically, using breath biomarkers means no syringes full of blood, no containers of urine, no disposal of infectious wastes, just collecting a bit of gas and mist that otherwise get lost to the ambient air.
We have found that breath is not just for gas-phase compounds analysis; in addition to dissolved volatile organics, the small water droplets and mists we exhale also contain a myriad of interesting large molecules, proteins, bacteria, and viruses that cannot be measured with traditional gas chromatography (see Figure 3). (44) A great deal of the literature revolves around exhaled breath condensate (EBC) as an alternative to breath gas collection, primarily for measuring pH and inflammatory markers as indicators of asthma status for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and for pulmonary infections. (45-49) EBC is also useful for interpreting the effects of recent exposures to environmental contaminants both for assessing exogenous chemicals and their metabolic responses. (49-51) It is notable that many factors can affect the composition of EBC including the pulmonary microbiome, specific pathologies, diet, epigenesis, and other individualized influences, but these are beyond the scope of this discussion.
Briefly, the exhaled breath is passed through a chilled tube and the pulmonary water vapor and aerosols condense on the surfaces. Typically, a subject breathes through the device for 10 minutes or so and about 1 mL of condensate is subsequently harvested from the tube. There are a variety of devices commercially available; in our laboratory we use the “R-Tube” (Respiratory Research, Austin, TX) modified for dry ice temperature collection. (52) The EBC fluid is a useful medium for a variety of polar volatile organic compounds, cytokines, and large molecules but tends to be very dilute as it is more than 99% water.
To collect just the aerosol fraction, we have been implementing a new technique wherein the subject blows through a filter at room temperature; we do not attempt to capture the water vapor or the more volatile fractions of breath. This is an attractive method for a qualitative study because it requires no infrastructure in the field besides disposable filters and sealable plastic bags. Furthermore, the filters collect exhaled pulmonary bacteria that stay alive at room temperature and can be cultured later in the laboratory. In addition to being able to identify strains via standard microbiological techniques, we also collect the headspace of the bacteria for subsequent organics analyses with GC/MS. In the long run, we hope to learn enough about individual bacteria “fingerprints” of gas-phase molecules that we can jump directly into exhaled breath analysis (without off-line bacterial cultures) to discern infection status of human subjects. The whole breath samples could also be collected directly onto adsorbent media (e.g., Tenax tubes) that can capture both aerosol and gas-phase constituents.

Comparisons of Discovery and Targeted Biomarker Data

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

In the following discussion, we describe the difference between discovery and targeted biomarker research using GC/MS results from exhaled breath samples as an example. These samples are drawn from our archives from methods development projects using anonymous biological specimens. Different sampling and analytical schemes will have similar properties. This is to be considered the simplest of examples using conventional benchtop laboratory instrumentation available in many environmental and clinical laboratories (Ultra TD autosampler coupled with a Unity thermal desorber (Markes International, Ltd., Llantrisandt, U.K.), Agilent 6890N GC coupled with an Agilent 5973I MS (Agilent, Palo Alto, CA).
If we collect whole breath (e.g., onto adsorbent tubes) and run it through a GC/MS under “scan” mode, the instrument essentially looks for everything that can possibly pass through the column and can create an ion in the MS source (Figure 3). Typically, we scan from 33 m/z (mass to charge ratio) to 350 m/z in default 0.1 m/z increments resulting in large data files with reasonable sensitivity at any given m/z. We realize that this resolution does not add analytical advantage over the nominal single unit amu data, but we choose this default setting to draw more understandable graphics. After we run a sample, we can look for benzene, for example, by extracting the 78 m/z ion from all ions and locate that spot in time on the GC run; for ethanol, we look for 45 m/z, for 1-propanol we look for 59 m/z, for 2-methylbutanol we look for 55 m/z, for 1-butanol and hexanal we look for 56 m/z, for toluene we look for 91 m/z, for carbon tetrachloride we look for 117 m/z, etc. (52) By combining elution time from the column and the specific ions for a molecule, we can dig out peaks and values for most compounds that are present in the breath and can respond on the instrument without previous knowledge. This way, we can “discover” what volatile organic compounds are in a particular breath sample. Certainly we check to see if we are right by also analyzing true standards and matching time and complete mass spectra. We thus create a long list of compounds that potentially come from breath and begin to understand relative amounts, variability, and relationships depending on subject meta-data (gender, age, ethnicity, socio-economics, location, etc.).

Figure 3

Figure 3. Left side graphics are a depiction of a “whole breath” gas sample analyzed with GC/MS under full scan, or discovery mode (top), and with selected ion monitoring, or targeted mode (bottom). The right side graphics show only the extracted traces for specific ions, and a close-up for two specific compounds, 3-methylbutanol and benzene. Although the extractions of the discovery mode (top) show a “noisier” result than those of the targeted mode (bottom), the targeted mode is missing many ions that can be seen in discovery mode.

At some point, we no longer want every possible compound but would like to do a more specific and sensitive job for only a few compounds of exceedingly high interest. In this case, we go into selective ion monitoring (SIM) acquisition mode and only acquire the ions for specific molecules. In following the previous scan example, we would “SIM” for only preselected ions such as 45, 55, 56, 78, and 117 m/z and thus spend much more time looking for those by sacrificing all of the other ions between 33 and 350 m/z. (We point out that for routine analyses of actual samples, we always include confirmatory ions and test for ion ratios for each target analyte to ensure quality of results). SIM is a targeted approach resulting in a much lower background noise level and a higher (or cleaner) response for the chosen molecules. The figure above shows a series of GC/MS plots comparing Scan and SIM GC/MS runs from identical breath samples; we also show the respective extractions for each of the methods and compounds wherein we see that SIM gives better data, but many other compounds are completely gone. We use benzene (78 m/z) and 3-methylbutanol (55 m/z) as examples of ubiquitous exogenous and endogenous compounds, respectively, in breath and further extract the small portion of the chromatogram to highlight the improvement in analytical results going from discovery to targeted analysis.
This is only a simple example that contrasts discovery vs targeted analysis. There are many different analytical systems that can collect either or both types of modes. (53-55) For example, liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS) is a powerful tool for making very exact measurements of larger molecules, but we can only take advantage of the instrument’s specificity by targeting analytes a priori and setting up their specific transitions for the linear quadrupoles. (56) In contrast, liquid chromatography time-of-flight mass spectrometry (LC–TOF) or LC-Orbitrap instrumentation can be used in discovery mode and the targeted features could be applied in data postprocessing. (57-59)

Summary of Discovery Approaches in Breath Biomarker Research

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The use of discovery approaches in all biomarker research (not just in breath) is extremely important in that it allows us to get an overall view of what is going on. Certainly not every compound is relevant for answering a particular question or testing a hypothesis. This requires many samples and analyses from different groups of subjects, and from multiple times from the same subject where we try to look for any changes between or within person that may mean something. From careful observation of such changes, we can build a more specific list of compounds that can help deduce the effects of exposures on the health state. There are, however, a number of precautions we need to take during the discovery phase of any study.
The first issue has been discussed above; by virtue of the broad nature of discovery analyses, any individual compound is not optimized for detection and so the data tend to be more qualitative. Also, the molecules with the highest concentrations and occurrence may not be the most important, and so we run the risk of missing something down in the “noise” that could tell a better story.
The second issue revolves around “test–retest” or “multiple hypothesis” statistics. The more compounds we are comparing the more likely we will have false positives (the aforementioned “voodoo correlation”); and the more we restrict the possibility of having excess false positives (e.g., Bonferroni correction), we increase the probability of false negatives. The statistics improve as we increase the number of independent samples and repeat the study with other groups of subjects. Other postprocessing methods including colinearity tests, nonparametric association tests, mixed models, and variable clustering can also reduce the occurrence of false positives but these methods may blur the impact of individual compounds and increase the chance of erroneously discarding an important probative compound. (60-62)
As such, the discovery approach is the first step. Without it, we would only be guessing as to what to look for with our specific targeted approaches. However, we cannot become complacent and assume that discovery is all-inclusive. We suggest that multiple discovery experiments with different biological media and analytical platforms are the ultimate solution for finding as many probative biochemicals as possible. Only then can we streamline the targeted approaches to achieve high-throughput sample processing. We conclude that exposure science is indeed evolving along a path blazed by the genomics community by embracing the broad discovery aspects of biomarker chemicals and defining the complex human exposome in a top down fashion, yet still recognizing the value of the targeted approaches that lead to exposure mitigation and regulation for protecting public health.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Author
    • Joachim D. Pleil - National Exposure Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, United States Email: [email protected]
  • Author
    • Matthew A. Stiegel - Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 27599, United States
  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Biography

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Joachim D. Pleil is principal investigator for systems biology approaches for exposure assessment for the U.S. EPA’s Office of Research and Development in Research Triangle Park, NC, and serves as adjunct Professor of Environmental Sciences and Engineering at the University of North Carolina School of Public Health in Chapel Hill, NC. He is a founding member of the International Association of Breath Research (IABR); he serves on the science advisory board of IABR and on the editorial boards of the Institute of Physics (IOP) Journal of Breath Research (JBR) and the InformaHealthCare journal Biomarkers.

Matthew A. Stiegel is an ORISE Research Fellow at U.S. EPA and a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering at the University of North Carolina School of Public Health in Chapel Hill, NC.

Acknowledgment

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

We are indebted to Terence Risby from Johns Hopkins University, Stephen Rappaport from University of California, Berkeley, and Stephen Edwards, Jon Sobus, Myriam Medina-Vera, Michael Madden, Andrew Ghio, and Linda Sheldon from U.S. EPA for invaluable insights and discussions over the past few years. We also thank our many colleagues in the exposure science and breath diagnostics/analysis communities who provide inspiration for continuing to develop the science for protecting human health. We especially thank C. Gaul and K. Tarpley from SRA International CreativeTeam for producing some of the artwork. This work was reviewed by the U.S. EPA and approved for publication. The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 62 other publications.

  1. 1
    Pleil, J. D.; Blount, B. C.; Waidyanatha, S.; Harper, M. J. Exposure Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2012, 22, 317 319
  2. 2
    Barr, D. B. J. Exposure Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2006, 16
  3. 3
    Lioy, P. J. Environ. Health. Perspect. 2010, 118, 1081 1090
  4. 4
    Cohen-Hubal, E. A.; Barr, D. B.; Koch, H. M.; Bahadori, T. J. J. Exposure Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2011, 21, 121 122
  5. 5
    Wild, C. P. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2005, 14, 1847 1850
  6. 6
    Pleil, J. D.; Stiegel, M. A.; Madden, M. C.; Sobus, J. R. Chemosphere 2011, 84, 716 23
  7. 7
    Helix Project: Building the Early-Life Exposome. http://www.projecthelix.eu/ (accessed September 10, 2013).
  8. 8
    National Research Council of The National Academies. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2013.
  9. 9
    Berkeley Center for Exposure Biology: University of California, Berkeley. Biological Response Indicators of Environment Stress Centers. http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/supported/dert/cris/programs/exposure/biological_response/berkeley/index.cfm (accessed September 10, 2013).
  10. 10
    Health and Exposome Research Center: Understanding Lifetime Exposures. http://news.emory.edu/stories/2013/05/hercules_esposome_grant_rollins/ (accessed September 10, 2013).
  11. 11
    Rappaport, S. M.; Smith, M. T. Science 2010, 330, 460 461
  12. 12
    Pleil, J. D.; Sheldon, L. S. Biomarkers 2011, 16, 99 105
  13. 13
    Pleil, J. D. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health, B: Crit. Rev. 2012, 15, 264 80
  14. 14
    Paoloni-Giacobino, A. Swiss Med. Wkly. 2011, 141, w13321
  15. 15
    Klepeis, N. E.; Nelson, W. C.; Ott, W. R.; Robinson, J. P.; Tsang, A. M.; Switzer, P.; Behar, J. V.; Hern, S. C.; Engelmann, W. H. J. Exposure Anal. Environ. Epidemiol. 2001, 11, 231 252
  16. 16
    Zhang, L.; McHale, C. M.; Rothman, N.; Li, G.; Ji, Z.; Vermeulen, R.; Hubbard, A. E.; Ren, X.; Shen, M.; Rappaport, S. M.; North, M.; Skibola, C. F.; Yin, S.; Vulpe, C.; Chanock, S. J.; Smith, M. T.; Lan, Q. Chem. Biol. Interact. 2010, 184, 86 93
  17. 17
    Rappaport, S. M. J. Exposure Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2011, 21, 5 9
  18. 18
    Liu, L.; Li, Y.; Tollefsbol, T. O. Curr. Issues. Mol. Biol. 2008, 10, 25 36
  19. 19
    The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. President Clinton Announces the Completion of the First Survey of the Entire Human Genome, Hails Public and Private Efforts Leading to This Historic Achievement; http://web.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/project/clinton1.shtml (accessed September 10, 2013).
  20. 20
    Wade, N. In New York Times; New York Times: New York, 2010.
  21. 21
    Hall, S. S. Sci. Am. 2010, 303, 60 67
  22. 22
    Kaiser, J. Science 2012, 338, 1016 1017
  23. 23
    Egeghy, P. P.; Hauf-Cabalo, L.; Gibson, R.; Rappaport, S. M. Occup. Environ. Med. 2003, 60, 969 976
  24. 24
    Rigas, M. L.; Okino, M. S.; Quackenboss, J. J. Toxicol. Sci. 2001, 61, 374 381
  25. 25
    Toxic Substances Control Act. U.S. Code, Chapter 53, Title 15, pp 2601 2629, 1976.
  26. 26
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Framework for an EPA Chemical Safety for Sustainability Research Program; U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 2011.
  27. 27
    Judson, R.; Richard, A.; Dix, D. J.; Houck, K.; Martin, M.; Kavlock, R.; Dellarco, V.; Henry, T.; Holderman, T.; Sayre, P.; Tan, S.; Carpenter, T.; Smith, E. Environ. Health Perspect. 2009, 117, 685 695
  28. 28
    Sheldon, L. S.; Cohen Hubal, E. A. Environ. Health Perspect. 2009, 117, 119 1194
  29. 29
    National Research Council of The National Academies. Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy; 2007.
  30. 30
    Dix, D. J.; Houck, K. A.; Martin, M. T.; Richard, A. M.; Setzer, R. W.; Kavlock, R. Toxicol. Sci. 2007, 95, 5 12
  31. 31
    Knudsen, T.; Martin, M.; Chandler, K.; Kleinstreuer, N.; Judson, R.; Sipes, N. Methods Mol. Biol. 2013, 947, 343 374
  32. 32
    Bouhifd, M.; Hartung, T.; Hogberg, H. T.; Kleensang, A.; Zhao, L. J. Appl. Toxicol. 2013,  DOI: 10.1002/jat.2874
  33. 33
    Pleil, J. D.; Williams, M. A.; Sobus, J. R. Toxicol. Lett. 2012, 215, 201 207
  34. 34
    Ankley, G. T.; Bennett, R. S.; Erickson, R. J.; Hoff, D. J.; Hornung, M. W.; Johnson, R. D.; Mount, D. R.; Nichols, J. W.; Russom, C. L.; Schmieder, P. K.; Serrrano, J. A.; Tietge, J. E.; Villeneuve, D. L. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2010, 29, 730 741
  35. 35
    Liu, H.; Bebu, I.; Li, X. Front. Biosci. 2010, 2, 325 338
  36. 36
    Patel, C. J.; Bhattacharya, J.; Butte, A. J. PLoS One 2010, 5, e10746
  37. 37
    Rappaport, S. M. Biomarkers 2012, 17, 483 489
  38. 38
    Amann, A.; Corradi, M.; Mazzone, P.; Mutti, A. Expert Rev. Mol. Diagn. 2011, 11, 202 217
  39. 39
    Mazzone, P. J. J. Breath Res. 2012, 6, 027106
  40. 40
    Slatore, C. G.; Gould, M. K.; Au, D. H.; Deffebach, M. E.; White, E. BMC Cancer 2011, 11, 7
  41. 41
    Bunn, P. A. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2012, 136, 1478 1481
  42. 42
    Pleil, J. D.; Stiegel, M. A.; Risby, T. H. J. Breath Res. 2013, 7, 017107
  43. 43
    Miekisch, W.; Herbig, J.; Schubert, J. K. J. Breath Res. 2012, 6, 036007
  44. 44
    Rosias, P. J. Breath Res. 2012, 6, 027102
  45. 45
    Loukides, S.; Kontogianni, K.; Hillas, G.; Horvath, I. Curr. Med. Chem. 2011, 18, 1432 1443
  46. 46
    Kazani, S.; Israel, E. J. Breath Res. 2010, 4, 047001
  47. 47
    Lee, W.; Thomas, P. S. Clin. Transl. Sci. 2009, 2, 150 155
  48. 48
    Chambers, S. T.; Scott-Thomas, A.; Epton, M. Curr. Opin. Pulm. Med. 2012, 18, 228 232
  49. 49
    Zhang, J.; Zhu, T.; Kipen, H.; Wang, G.; Huang, W.; Rich, D.; Zhu, P.; Wang, Y.; Lu, S.-E.; Ohman-Strickland, P.; Diehl, S.; Hu, M.; Tong, J.; Gong, J.; Thomas, D.; H. E. I. H. R. Committee Res. Resp. Health Eff. Inst. 2013, 5 174
  50. 50
    Hubbard, H. F.; Sobus, J. R.; Pleil, J. D.; Madden, M. C.; Tabucchi, S. J. Chromatogr., B: Anal. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 2009, 877, 3652 3658
  51. 51
    Sawyer, K.; Samet, J. D.; Ghio, A. J.; Pleil, J. D.; Madden, M. C. J. Breath Res. 2009, 2, 037019
  52. 52
    Pleil, J. D.; Hubbard, H. F.; Sobus, J. R.; Sawyer, K.; Madden, M. C. J. Breath Res. 2008, 2, 026001
  53. 53
    Koester, C. J.; Moulik, A. Anal. Chem. 2005, 77, 3737 3754
  54. 54
    Boja, E. S.; Rodriguez, H. Proteonomics 2012, 12, 1093 1110
  55. 55
    Dasilva, N.; Díez, P.; Matarraz, S.; González-González, M.; Paradinas, S.; Orfao, A.; Fuentes, M. Sensors (Basel) 2012, 12, 2284 2308
  56. 56
    Grebe, S. K.; Singh, R. J. Clin. Biochem. Rev. 2011, 32, 5 31
  57. 57
    Lacorte, S.; Fernandez-Alba, A. R. Mass Spectrom. Rev. 2006, 25, 866 880
  58. 58
    Ferrer, I.; Thurman, E. M.; Fernández-Alba, A. R. Anal. Chem. 2005, 77, 2818 2825
  59. 59
    Zubarev, R. A.; Makarov, A. Anal. Chem. 2013, 85, 5288 5296
  60. 60
    Sobus, J. R.; Pleil, J. D.; McClean, M. D.; Herrick, R. F.; Rappaport, S. M. Toxicol. Lett. 2010, 199, 247 253
  61. 61
    Pleil, J. D.; Stiegel, M. A.; Sobus, J. R. J. Breath Res. 2011, 5, 046005
  62. 62
    Pleil, J. D.; Sobus, J. R.; Sheppard, P. R.; Ridenour, G.; Witten, M. L. Chem. Biol. Interact. 2012, 196, 68 78

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article is cited by 55 publications.

  1. Yan Wang, Jichun Jiang, Lei Hua, Keyong Hou, Yuanyuan Xie, Ping Chen, Wei Liu, Qingyun Li, Shuang Wang, and Haiyang Li . High-Pressure Photon Ionization Source for TOFMS and Its Application for Online Breath Analysis. Analytical Chemistry 2016, 88 (18) , 9047-9055. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.6b01707
  2. Sara El Fouikar, Nathalie Van Acker, Virginie Héliès, François-Xavier Frenois, Frank Giton, Véronique Gayrard, Yannick Dauwe, Laila Mselli-Lakhal, Delphine Rousseau-Ralliard, Natalie Fournier, Roger Léandri, Nicolas Gatimel. Folliculogenesis and steroidogenesis alterations after chronic exposure to a human-relevant mixture of environmental toxicants spare the ovarian reserve in the rabbit model. Journal of Ovarian Research 2024, 17 (1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-024-01457-6
  3. Hsuan Chou, Lucy Godbeer, Max Allsworth, Billy Boyle, Madeleine L. Ball. Progress and challenges of developing volatile metabolites from exhaled breath as a biomarker platform. Metabolomics 2024, 20 (4) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11306-024-02142-x
  4. Yuanyuan SONG, Zenghua QI, Zongwei CAI. Application of multiomics mass spectrometry in the research of chemical exposome. Chinese Journal of Chromatography 2024, 42 (2) , 120-130. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1123.2023.10001
  5. Pankaj Pankaj, Pramod Kumar, Aman Kapoor, Priyanka Priyanka, Puneet Kumar, Saweta Kumari. LC–Tof-Ms an Influential Hyphenated Technique and its Application. Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical Analysis 2023, , 35-41. https://doi.org/10.52711/2231-5675.2023.00006
  6. . Appendix 1. 2023, e1-e52. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-89873-7.00007-7
  7. Shakiba Zeinali, Chiranjit Ghosh, Janusz Pawliszyn. Simultaneous determination of exhaled breath vapor and exhaled breath aerosol using filter-incorporated needle-trap devices: A comparison of gas-phase and droplet-bound components. Analytica Chimica Acta 2022, 1203 , 339671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2022.339671
  8. Joachim D Pleil, Charles N Lowe, M Ariel Geer Wallace, Antony J Williams. Using the US EPA CompTox Chemicals Dashboard to interpret targeted and non-targeted GC–MS analyses from human breath and other biological media. Journal of Breath Research 2021, 15 (2) , 025001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1752-7163/abdb03
  9. Alexander J Schmidt, Eva Borras, Anh P Nguyen, Danny Yeap, Nicholas J Kenyon, Cristina E Davis. Portable exhaled breath condensate metabolomics for daily monitoring of adolescent asthma. Journal of Breath Research 2020, 14 (2) , 026001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1752-7163/ab35b5
  10. Joachim D. Pleil, Matthew A. Stiegel, Jonathan D. Beauchamp. Breath biomarkers and the exposome. 2020, 3-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819967-1.00001-3
  11. Joachim D Pleil, M Ariel Geer Wallace, James McCord, Michael C Madden, Jon Sobus, Glenn Ferguson. How do cancer-sniffing dogs sort biological samples? Exploring case-control samples with non-targeted LC-Orbitrap, GC-MS, and immunochemistry methods. Journal of Breath Research 2020, 14 (1) , 016006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1752-7163/ab433a
  12. Shayma Alkobaisi, Wan D. Bae, Matthew Horak, Sada Narayanappa, Jongwon Lee, Eman AbuKhousa, Choon-Sik Park, Da Jung Bae. Predictive and exposome analytics: A case study of asthma exacerbation management. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments 2019, 11 (6) , 527-552. https://doi.org/10.3233/AIS-190540
  13. Jingchuan Xue, Yunjia Lai, Chih-Wei Liu, Hongyu Ru. Towards Mass Spectrometry-Based Chemical Exposome: Current Approaches, Challenges, and Future Directions. Toxics 2019, 7 (3) , 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics7030041
  14. Wan D. Bae, Matthew Horak, Shayma Alkobaisi, Sehjeong Kim, Sada Narayanappa, Choon-Sik Park, Da Jeong Bae. A two-step approach to predictive modeling of individual-based environmental health risks. 2019, 729-738. https://doi.org/10.1145/3297280.3297350
  15. Cassandra R. O’Lenick, Joachim D. Pleil, Matthew A. Stiegel, Jon R. Sobus, M. Ariel Geer Wallace. Detection and analysis of endogenous polar volatile organic compounds (PVOCs) in urine for human exposome research. Biomarkers 2019, 24 (3) , 240-248. https://doi.org/10.1080/1354750X.2018.1548031
  16. M. Ariel Geer Wallace, Joachim D. Pleil, Karen D. Oliver, Donald A. Whitaker, Sibel Mentese, Kenneth W. Fent, Gavin P. Horn. Non-targeted GC/MS analysis of exhaled breath samples: Exploring human biomarkers of exogenous exposure and endogenous response from professional firefighting activity. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A 2019, 82 (4) , 244-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/15287394.2019.1587901
  17. Xue Li, Dandan Huang, Jiafa Zeng, Chak Keung Chan, Zhen Zhou. Positive matrix factorization: A data preprocessing strategy for direct mass spectrometry-based breath analysis. Talanta 2019, 192 , 32-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2018.09.020
  18. Thomas Hector Chappuis, Bao An Pham Ho, Morgan Ceillier, Florence Ricoul, Manuel Alessio, Jean-Francois Beche, Christelle Corne, Gérard Besson, Jérôme Vial, Didier Thiébaut, Bertrand Bourlon. Miniaturization of breath sampling with silicon chip: application to volatile tobacco markers tracking. Journal of Breath Research 2018, 12 (4) , 046011. https://doi.org/10.1088/1752-7163/aad384
  19. Jon R. Sobus, John F. Wambaugh, Kristin K. Isaacs, Antony J. Williams, Andrew D. McEachran, Ann M. Richard, Christopher M. Grulke, Elin M. Ulrich, Julia E. Rager, Mark J. Strynar, Seth R. Newton. Integrating tools for non-targeted analysis research and chemical safety evaluations at the US EPA. Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology 2018, 28 (5) , 411-426. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-017-0012-y
  20. Victor N Morozov, Andrey Y Mikheev, Yuri M Shlyapnikov, Alexander A Nikolaev, Irina V Lyadova. Non-invasive lung disease diagnostics from exhaled microdroplets of lung fluid: perspectives and technical challenges. Journal of Breath Research 2018, 12 (1) , 017103. https://doi.org/10.1088/1752-7163/aa88e4
  21. Brett R Winters, Joachim D Pleil, Michelle M Angrish, Matthew A Stiegel, Terence H Risby, Michael C Madden. Standardization of the collection of exhaled breath condensate and exhaled breath aerosol using a feedback regulated sampling device. Journal of Breath Research 2017, 11 (4) , 047107. https://doi.org/10.1088/1752-7163/aa8bbc
  22. M. Ariel Geer Wallace, Joachim D. Pleil, Sibel Mentese, Karen D. Oliver, Donald A. Whitaker, Kenneth W. Fent. Calibration and performance of synchronous SIM/scan mode for simultaneous targeted and discovery (non-targeted) analysis of exhaled breath samples from firefighters. Journal of Chromatography A 2017, 1516 , 114-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2017.07.082
  23. Alexander A. Aksenov, Konstantin O. Zamuruyev, Alberto Pasamontes, Joshua F. Brown, Michael Schivo, Soraya Foutouhi, Bart C. Weimer, Nicholas J. Kenyon, Cristina E. Davis. Analytical methodologies for broad metabolite coverage of exhaled breath condensate. Journal of Chromatography B 2017, 1061-1062 , 17-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchromb.2017.06.038
  24. Jinchang Tian, Xin Huang, Guijie Mao, Feng Xu, Wenyi Chu, ZhiZhong Sun. Synthesis, photophysical, electrochemical and theoretical studies of the novel indolo[3,2-b]indole derivatives. Journal of Molecular Structure 2017, 1144 , 129-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molstruc.2017.05.021
  25. Joachim Pleil, Jonathan Beauchamp, Wolfram Miekisch. Cellular respiration, metabolomics and the search for illicit drug biomarkers in breath: report from PittCon 2017. Journal of Breath Research 2017, 11 (3) , 039001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1752-7163/aa7174
  26. Young-Mi Go, Dean P. Jones. Redox theory of aging: implications for health and disease. Clinical Science 2017, 131 (14) , 1669-1688. https://doi.org/10.1042/CS20160897
  27. Matthew A. Stiegel, Joachim D. Pleil, Jon R. Sobus, Tina Stevens, Michael C. Madden. Linking physiological parameters to perturbations in the human exposome: Environmental exposures modify blood pressure and lung function via inflammatory cytokine pathway. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A 2017, 80 (9) , 485-501. https://doi.org/10.1080/15287394.2017.1330578
  28. Ildiko Horváth, Peter J. Barnes, Stelios Loukides, Peter J. Sterk, Marieann Högman, Anna-Carin Olin, Anton Amann, Balazs Antus, Eugenio Baraldi, Andras Bikov, Agnes W. Boots, Lieuwe D. Bos, Paul Brinkman, Caterina Bucca, Giovanna E. Carpagnano, Massimo Corradi, Simona Cristescu, Johan C. de Jongste, Anh-Tuan Dinh-Xuan, Edward Dompeling, Niki Fens, Stephen Fowler, Jens M. Hohlfeld, Olaf Holz, Quirijn Jöbsis, Kim Van De Kant, Hugo H. Knobel, Konstantinos Kostikas, Lauri Lehtimäki, Jon O. Lundberg, Paolo Montuschi, Alain Van Muylem, Giorgio Pennazza, Petra Reinhold, Fabio L.M. Ricciardolo, Philippe Rosias, Marco Santonico, Marc P. van der Schee, Frederik-Jan van Schooten, Antonio Spanevello, Thomy Tonia, Teunis J. Vink. A European Respiratory Society technical standard: exhaled biomarkers in lung disease. European Respiratory Journal 2017, 49 (4) , 1600965. https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.00965-2016
  29. Syam S. Andra, Christine Austin, Dhavalkumar Patel, Georgia Dolios, Mahmoud Awawda, Manish Arora. Trends in the application of high-resolution mass spectrometry for human biomonitoring: An analytical primer to studying the environmental chemical space of the human exposome. Environment International 2017, 100 , 32-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2016.11.026
  30. Xue Li, Lei Huang, Hui Zhu, Zhen Zhou. Direct human breath analysis by secondary nano‐electrospray ionization ultrahigh‐resolution mass spectrometry: Importance of high mass resolution and mass accuracy. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 2017, 31 (3) , 301-308. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcm.7794
  31. Eva Pose-Juan, Tania Fernández-Cruz, Jesús Simal-Gándara. State of the art on public risk assessment of combined human exposure to multiple chemical contaminants. Trends in Food Science & Technology 2016, 55 , 11-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2016.06.011
  32. Jonathan Williams, Joachim Pleil. Crowd-based breath analysis: assessing behavior, activity, exposures, and emotional response of people in groups. Journal of Breath Research 2016, 10 (3) , 032001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1752-7155/10/3/032001
  33. Andras Bikov, James H. Hull, Laszlo Kunos. Exhaled breath analysis, a simple tool to study the pathophysiology of obstructive sleep apnoea. Sleep Medicine Reviews 2016, 27 , 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2015.07.005
  34. Matthew A. Stiegel, Joachim D. Pleil, Jon R. Sobus, Michael C. Madden, . Inflammatory Cytokines and White Blood Cell Counts Response to Environmental Levels of Diesel Exhaust and Ozone Inhalation Exposures. PLOS ONE 2016, 11 (4) , e0152458. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152458
  35. Syam S. Andra, Christine Austin, Manish Arora. The tooth exposome in children's health research. Current Opinion in Pediatrics 2016, 28 (2) , 221-227. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOP.0000000000000327
  36. Joachim D Pleil. Cellular respiration: replicating in vivo systems biology for in vitro exploration of human exposome, microbiome, and disease pathogenesis biomarkers. Journal of Breath Research 2016, 10 (1) , 010201. https://doi.org/10.1088/1752-7155/10/1/010201
  37. Joachim D Pleil, Kristin K Isaacs. High-resolution mass spectrometry: basic principles for using exact mass and mass defect for discovery analysis of organic molecules in blood, breath, urine and environmental media. Journal of Breath Research 2016, 10 (1) , 012001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1752-7155/10/1/012001
  38. Jonathan Beauchamp. Current sampling and analysis techniques in breath research—results of a task force poll. Journal of Breath Research 2015, 9 (4) , 047107. https://doi.org/10.1088/1752-7155/9/4/047107
  39. Joachim D Pleil, Michelle M Angrish, Michael C Madden. Immunochemistry for high-throughput screening of human exhaled breath condensate (EBC) media: implementation of automated quanterix SIMOA instrumentation. Journal of Breath Research 2015, 9 (4) , 047108. https://doi.org/10.1088/1752-7155/9/4/047108
  40. M. A. Stiegel, J. D. Pleil, J. R. Sobus, M. M. Angrish, M. K. Morgan. Kidney injury biomarkers and urinary creatinine variability in nominally healthy adults. Biomarkers 2015, 20 (6-7) , 436-452. https://doi.org/10.3109/1354750X.2015.1094136
  41. Jon R. Sobus, Robert S. DeWoskin, Yu-Mei Tan, Joachim D. Pleil, Martin Blake Phillips, Barbara Jane George, Krista Christensen, Dina M. Schreinemachers, Marc A. Williams, Elaine A. Cohen Hubal, Stephen W. Edwards. Uses of NHANES Biomarker Data for Chemical Risk Assessment: Trends, Challenges, and Opportunities. Environmental Health Perspectives 2015, 123 (10) , 919-927. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1409177
  42. Karl Unterkofler, Julian King, Pawel Mochalski, Martin Jandacka, Helin Koc, Susanne Teschl, Anton Amann, Gerald Teschl. Modeling-based determination of physiological parameters of systemic VOCs by breath gas analysis: a pilot study. Journal of Breath Research 2015, 9 (3) , 036002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1752-7155/9/3/036002
  43. Joachim D Pleil, Jonathan D Beauchamp, Wolfram Miekisch, William E Funk. Adapting biomarker technologies to adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) research: current thoughts on using in vivo discovery for developing in vitro target methods. Journal of Breath Research 2015, 9 (3) , 039001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1752-7155/9/3/039001
  44. Martin Harper, Christopher Weis, Joachim D Pleil, Benjamin C Blount, Aubrey Miller, Mark D Hoover, Steven Jahn. Commentary on the contributions and future role of occupational exposure science in a vision and strategy for the discipline of exposure science. Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology 2015, 25 (4) , 381-387. https://doi.org/10.1038/jes.2014.91
  45. Jonathan D Beauchamp, Joachim D Pleil. Breath: An Often Overlooked Medium in Biomarker Discovery. 2015, 75-93. https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527680658.ch5
  46. Joachim D. Pleil. Understanding new “exploratory” biomarker data: a first look at observed concentrations and associated detection limits. Biomarkers 2015, 20 (2) , 168-169. https://doi.org/10.3109/1354750X.2015.1040841
  47. Matthew A. Stiegel, Joachim D. Pleil, Jon R. Sobus, Marsha K. Morgan, Michael C. Madden. Analysis of inflammatory cytokines in human blood, breath condensate, and urine using a multiplex immunoassay platform. Biomarkers 2015, 20 (1) , 35-46. https://doi.org/10.3109/1354750X.2014.988646
  48. Heather D. Bean, Jaime Jiménez-Díaz, Jiangjiang Zhu, Jane E. Hill. Breathprints of model murine bacterial lung infections are linked with immune response. European Respiratory Journal 2015, 45 (1) , 181-190. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00015814
  49. Anton Amann, Ben de Lacy Costello, Wolfram Miekisch, Jochen Schubert, Bogusław Buszewski, Joachim Pleil, Norman Ratcliffe, Terence Risby. The human volatilome: volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in exhaled breath, skin emanations, urine, feces and saliva. Journal of Breath Research 2014, 8 (3) , 034001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1752-7155/8/3/034001
  50. Jens Herbig, Jonathan Beauchamp. Towards standardization in the analysis of breath gas volatiles. Journal of Breath Research 2014, 8 (3) , 037101. https://doi.org/10.1088/1752-7155/8/3/037101
  51. Joachim D Pleil, Matthew A Stiegel, Kenneth W Fent. Exploratory breath analyses for assessing toxic dermal exposures of firefighters during suppression of structural burns. Journal of Breath Research 2014, 8 (3) , 037107. https://doi.org/10.1088/1752-7155/8/3/037107
  52. Paweł Mochalski, Karl Unterkofler, Patrik Španěl, David Smith, Anton Amann. Product ion distributions for the reactions of NO + with some physiologically significant volatile organosulfur and organoselenium compounds obtained using a selective reagent ionization time‐of‐flight mass spectrometer. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 2014, 28 (15) , 1683-1690. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcm.6947
  53. Anton Amann, Wolfram Miekisch, Jochen Schubert, Bogusław Buszewski, Tomasz Ligor, Tadeusz Jezierski, Joachim Pleil, Terence Risby. Analysis of Exhaled Breath for Disease Detection. Annual Review of Analytical Chemistry 2014, 7 (1) , 455-482. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anchem-071213-020043
  54. Joachim D Pleil, Wolfram Miekisch, Matthew A Stiegel, Jonathan Beauchamp. Extending breath analysis to the cellular level: current thoughts on the human microbiome and the expression of organic compounds in the human exposome. Journal of Breath Research 2014, 8 (2) , 029001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1752-7155/8/2/029001
  55. Paweł Mochalski, Karl Unterkofler, Patrik Španěl, David Smith, Anton Amann. Product ion distributions for the reactions of NO+ with some physiologically significant aldehydes obtained using a SRI-TOF-MS instrument. International Journal of Mass Spectrometry 2014, 363 , 23-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijms.2014.02.016

Analytical Chemistry

Cite this: Anal. Chem. 2013, 85, 21, 9984–9990
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/ac402306f
Published September 25, 2013

Copyright © 2013 American Chemical Society. This publication is available under these Terms of Use.

Article Views

3206

Altmetric

-

Citations

Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Relatives like the grandfather and grandson share genetic traits, but their environmental lifetime experiences result in very different personal exposomes despite sharing the same exposures for a short time on occasion. Photo Copyright: C. Maureen Pleil.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. The diagram shows the classical concepts of bottom-up, targeted analysis (left triangle) in contrast to top-down discovery analysis (right triangle) for assessing the effects on the human community or subpopulation (center). Center image photo credit: Shuttershock. Targeted analysis seeks out specific compounds of exposure in the environment from multiple sources (food, air, water, dust, etc.) whereas discovery analysis starts with human biological media (blood, breath, urine, etc.) to look for all possible compounds and then narrow them down to those with potential exposure to health linkages.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. Left side graphics are a depiction of a “whole breath” gas sample analyzed with GC/MS under full scan, or discovery mode (top), and with selected ion monitoring, or targeted mode (bottom). The right side graphics show only the extracted traces for specific ions, and a close-up for two specific compounds, 3-methylbutanol and benzene. Although the extractions of the discovery mode (top) show a “noisier” result than those of the targeted mode (bottom), the targeted mode is missing many ions that can be seen in discovery mode.

  • References


    This article references 62 other publications.

    1. 1
      Pleil, J. D.; Blount, B. C.; Waidyanatha, S.; Harper, M. J. Exposure Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2012, 22, 317 319
    2. 2
      Barr, D. B. J. Exposure Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2006, 16
    3. 3
      Lioy, P. J. Environ. Health. Perspect. 2010, 118, 1081 1090
    4. 4
      Cohen-Hubal, E. A.; Barr, D. B.; Koch, H. M.; Bahadori, T. J. J. Exposure Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2011, 21, 121 122
    5. 5
      Wild, C. P. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2005, 14, 1847 1850
    6. 6
      Pleil, J. D.; Stiegel, M. A.; Madden, M. C.; Sobus, J. R. Chemosphere 2011, 84, 716 23
    7. 7
      Helix Project: Building the Early-Life Exposome. http://www.projecthelix.eu/ (accessed September 10, 2013).
    8. 8
      National Research Council of The National Academies. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2013.
    9. 9
      Berkeley Center for Exposure Biology: University of California, Berkeley. Biological Response Indicators of Environment Stress Centers. http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/supported/dert/cris/programs/exposure/biological_response/berkeley/index.cfm (accessed September 10, 2013).
    10. 10
      Health and Exposome Research Center: Understanding Lifetime Exposures. http://news.emory.edu/stories/2013/05/hercules_esposome_grant_rollins/ (accessed September 10, 2013).
    11. 11
      Rappaport, S. M.; Smith, M. T. Science 2010, 330, 460 461
    12. 12
      Pleil, J. D.; Sheldon, L. S. Biomarkers 2011, 16, 99 105
    13. 13
      Pleil, J. D. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health, B: Crit. Rev. 2012, 15, 264 80
    14. 14
      Paoloni-Giacobino, A. Swiss Med. Wkly. 2011, 141, w13321
    15. 15
      Klepeis, N. E.; Nelson, W. C.; Ott, W. R.; Robinson, J. P.; Tsang, A. M.; Switzer, P.; Behar, J. V.; Hern, S. C.; Engelmann, W. H. J. Exposure Anal. Environ. Epidemiol. 2001, 11, 231 252
    16. 16
      Zhang, L.; McHale, C. M.; Rothman, N.; Li, G.; Ji, Z.; Vermeulen, R.; Hubbard, A. E.; Ren, X.; Shen, M.; Rappaport, S. M.; North, M.; Skibola, C. F.; Yin, S.; Vulpe, C.; Chanock, S. J.; Smith, M. T.; Lan, Q. Chem. Biol. Interact. 2010, 184, 86 93
    17. 17
      Rappaport, S. M. J. Exposure Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2011, 21, 5 9
    18. 18
      Liu, L.; Li, Y.; Tollefsbol, T. O. Curr. Issues. Mol. Biol. 2008, 10, 25 36
    19. 19
      The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. President Clinton Announces the Completion of the First Survey of the Entire Human Genome, Hails Public and Private Efforts Leading to This Historic Achievement; http://web.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/project/clinton1.shtml (accessed September 10, 2013).
    20. 20
      Wade, N. In New York Times; New York Times: New York, 2010.
    21. 21
      Hall, S. S. Sci. Am. 2010, 303, 60 67
    22. 22
      Kaiser, J. Science 2012, 338, 1016 1017
    23. 23
      Egeghy, P. P.; Hauf-Cabalo, L.; Gibson, R.; Rappaport, S. M. Occup. Environ. Med. 2003, 60, 969 976
    24. 24
      Rigas, M. L.; Okino, M. S.; Quackenboss, J. J. Toxicol. Sci. 2001, 61, 374 381
    25. 25
      Toxic Substances Control Act. U.S. Code, Chapter 53, Title 15, pp 2601 2629, 1976.
    26. 26
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Framework for an EPA Chemical Safety for Sustainability Research Program; U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 2011.
    27. 27
      Judson, R.; Richard, A.; Dix, D. J.; Houck, K.; Martin, M.; Kavlock, R.; Dellarco, V.; Henry, T.; Holderman, T.; Sayre, P.; Tan, S.; Carpenter, T.; Smith, E. Environ. Health Perspect. 2009, 117, 685 695
    28. 28
      Sheldon, L. S.; Cohen Hubal, E. A. Environ. Health Perspect. 2009, 117, 119 1194
    29. 29
      National Research Council of The National Academies. Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy; 2007.
    30. 30
      Dix, D. J.; Houck, K. A.; Martin, M. T.; Richard, A. M.; Setzer, R. W.; Kavlock, R. Toxicol. Sci. 2007, 95, 5 12
    31. 31
      Knudsen, T.; Martin, M.; Chandler, K.; Kleinstreuer, N.; Judson, R.; Sipes, N. Methods Mol. Biol. 2013, 947, 343 374
    32. 32
      Bouhifd, M.; Hartung, T.; Hogberg, H. T.; Kleensang, A.; Zhao, L. J. Appl. Toxicol. 2013,  DOI: 10.1002/jat.2874
    33. 33
      Pleil, J. D.; Williams, M. A.; Sobus, J. R. Toxicol. Lett. 2012, 215, 201 207
    34. 34
      Ankley, G. T.; Bennett, R. S.; Erickson, R. J.; Hoff, D. J.; Hornung, M. W.; Johnson, R. D.; Mount, D. R.; Nichols, J. W.; Russom, C. L.; Schmieder, P. K.; Serrrano, J. A.; Tietge, J. E.; Villeneuve, D. L. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2010, 29, 730 741
    35. 35
      Liu, H.; Bebu, I.; Li, X. Front. Biosci. 2010, 2, 325 338
    36. 36
      Patel, C. J.; Bhattacharya, J.; Butte, A. J. PLoS One 2010, 5, e10746
    37. 37
      Rappaport, S. M. Biomarkers 2012, 17, 483 489
    38. 38
      Amann, A.; Corradi, M.; Mazzone, P.; Mutti, A. Expert Rev. Mol. Diagn. 2011, 11, 202 217
    39. 39
      Mazzone, P. J. J. Breath Res. 2012, 6, 027106
    40. 40
      Slatore, C. G.; Gould, M. K.; Au, D. H.; Deffebach, M. E.; White, E. BMC Cancer 2011, 11, 7
    41. 41
      Bunn, P. A. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2012, 136, 1478 1481
    42. 42
      Pleil, J. D.; Stiegel, M. A.; Risby, T. H. J. Breath Res. 2013, 7, 017107
    43. 43
      Miekisch, W.; Herbig, J.; Schubert, J. K. J. Breath Res. 2012, 6, 036007
    44. 44
      Rosias, P. J. Breath Res. 2012, 6, 027102
    45. 45
      Loukides, S.; Kontogianni, K.; Hillas, G.; Horvath, I. Curr. Med. Chem. 2011, 18, 1432 1443
    46. 46
      Kazani, S.; Israel, E. J. Breath Res. 2010, 4, 047001
    47. 47
      Lee, W.; Thomas, P. S. Clin. Transl. Sci. 2009, 2, 150 155
    48. 48
      Chambers, S. T.; Scott-Thomas, A.; Epton, M. Curr. Opin. Pulm. Med. 2012, 18, 228 232
    49. 49
      Zhang, J.; Zhu, T.; Kipen, H.; Wang, G.; Huang, W.; Rich, D.; Zhu, P.; Wang, Y.; Lu, S.-E.; Ohman-Strickland, P.; Diehl, S.; Hu, M.; Tong, J.; Gong, J.; Thomas, D.; H. E. I. H. R. Committee Res. Resp. Health Eff. Inst. 2013, 5 174
    50. 50
      Hubbard, H. F.; Sobus, J. R.; Pleil, J. D.; Madden, M. C.; Tabucchi, S. J. Chromatogr., B: Anal. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 2009, 877, 3652 3658
    51. 51
      Sawyer, K.; Samet, J. D.; Ghio, A. J.; Pleil, J. D.; Madden, M. C. J. Breath Res. 2009, 2, 037019
    52. 52
      Pleil, J. D.; Hubbard, H. F.; Sobus, J. R.; Sawyer, K.; Madden, M. C. J. Breath Res. 2008, 2, 026001
    53. 53
      Koester, C. J.; Moulik, A. Anal. Chem. 2005, 77, 3737 3754
    54. 54
      Boja, E. S.; Rodriguez, H. Proteonomics 2012, 12, 1093 1110
    55. 55
      Dasilva, N.; Díez, P.; Matarraz, S.; González-González, M.; Paradinas, S.; Orfao, A.; Fuentes, M. Sensors (Basel) 2012, 12, 2284 2308
    56. 56
      Grebe, S. K.; Singh, R. J. Clin. Biochem. Rev. 2011, 32, 5 31
    57. 57
      Lacorte, S.; Fernandez-Alba, A. R. Mass Spectrom. Rev. 2006, 25, 866 880
    58. 58
      Ferrer, I.; Thurman, E. M.; Fernández-Alba, A. R. Anal. Chem. 2005, 77, 2818 2825
    59. 59
      Zubarev, R. A.; Makarov, A. Anal. Chem. 2013, 85, 5288 5296
    60. 60
      Sobus, J. R.; Pleil, J. D.; McClean, M. D.; Herrick, R. F.; Rappaport, S. M. Toxicol. Lett. 2010, 199, 247 253
    61. 61
      Pleil, J. D.; Stiegel, M. A.; Sobus, J. R. J. Breath Res. 2011, 5, 046005
    62. 62
      Pleil, J. D.; Sobus, J. R.; Sheppard, P. R.; Ridenour, G.; Witten, M. L. Chem. Biol. Interact. 2012, 196, 68 78