Effect of industrial point-source air pollutants on fractional exhaled nitric oxide in healthy volunteers

The comparision of two exhaled nitric oxide analyzers: NIOX VERO and SUNVOU-CA2122

BACKGROUND

As a marker of eosinophilic airway inflammation, fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) was widely used in clinical practice. NIOX VERO (VERO) and SUNVOU-CA2122 (CA2122) are two commonly used exhaled nitric oxide (eNO) analyzers in China. However, what's the difference and agreement between the two devices and whether the two types of devices can be replaced by each other in the application of common respiratory diseases have not been reported.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare the two types of devices and to evaluate the difference between them in clinical use and whether they could be replaced.

METHODS

FeNO levels in 244 respiratory patients (including asthma, COPD, chronic cough) were measured by SUNVOU-CA2122 analyzer (CA2122) and NIOX VERO analyzer (VERO), respectively. FeNO values obtained by the two devices were compared and analyzed for the difference. The success rate, the number of attempts and the total time required for a successful measurement by CA2122 and VERO were compared. The FeNO values measured offline by CA2122 were compared with FeNO values measured online by CA2122 and VERO.

RESULTS

FeNO values obtained by CA2122 were slightly higher than those of VERO [median(range): 29.0(9-271) ppb vs 25.5 (5-263) ppb, P=0.000]. There was a high correlation between FeNO values measured by the two types of devices (r = 0.964, P= 0.000). By comparison, there was a high degree of agreement between the FeNO values measured by two devices, in all patients with different respiratory diseases. FeNO values measured online and offline by CA2122 were highly correlated and there was a high degree of agreement between online and offline methods. The success rate of CA2122 was higher than VERO, and the number of attempts (2.1 vs 2.4) and the total time (110.5±35.7 vs 117.5±48.1 seconds) required for a successful measurement by CA2122 were lower than those of VERO.

CONCLUSIONS

CA2122 and VERO can be replaced by each other, and FeNO values can be converted if necessary. CA2122 has some advantages in success rate, the mean attempts and time required for successful measurement of FeNO.

Cavity ringdown spectroscopy of nitric oxide in the ultraviolet region for human breath test

We report the spectrum of nitric oxide (NO) in the ultraviolet (UV) (225.4-227.0 nm) region based on cavity ringdown spectroscopy (CRDS). A cavity ringdown system, which consisted of a tunable UV laser source and a vacuum-pumped ringdown cavity, was constructed to measure NO at room temperature and atmospheric or reduced pressure. The measured spectra were validated using LIFBase simulations. The absorption cross-section of NO at the strongest absorption peak at 226.255 nm was measured to be 7.64 × 10^-18 cm² molecule^-1. Using the measured mirror reflectivity of 99.55% at 226.255 nm, the detection limit of NO was determined to be 7.4 ppb (parts per billion) based on the standard 3-σ criteria. The stability and reproducibility of this CRDS system were also tested. Furthermore, exhaled gas samples from 203 human subjects (105 healthy people and 98 lung cancer patients) were measured using the system. Results demonstrated that the cavity ringdown spectroscopy in the deep-UV region has potential for breath NO test.