Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions

From the authors

I. Horvath, B. Szili, T. Kullmann
European Respiratory Journal 2006 28: 252-253; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.06.00033506
I. Horvath
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
B. Szili
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
T. Kullmann
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

We appreciate the opportunity to reply to the letter by Z.L. Borrill and coworkers regarding the European Respiratory Society (ERS)/American Thoracic Society (ATS) exhaled breath condensate (EBC) Task Force report. EBC pH measurement is indeed a rapidly growing field of research with the promise of providing previously unknown information about the airways. The measurement is simple, can be performed sample by sample and there is no problem with the detection limit. EBC, however, is a diluted fluid with a low buffering capacity, which makes its pH value sensitive to changes in CO2 content. Although the CO2 concentration of fresh EBC samples is probably similar to that found in the airway lining fluid, this CO2 concentration will change spontaneously due to the rapid interaction with environmental air after sampling. That is the main reason why deaeration of EBC samples is recommended to decrease the level of uncertainty when measuring EBC pH and to obtain more standardised readings. All of this appears to be so simple that, until recently, nobody dared to measure EBC partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PCO2) or at least to publish data on it.

It is interesting to observe the indirect approach that Z.L. Borill and coworkers use to estimate the CO2 content of the EBC and its relative contribution to EBC pH by analysing the relationship between baseline pH values and pH changes caused by deaeration.

To prove the above concept (deaeration results in EBC pH change by causing a decrease in PCO2 of the samples), there is a simply direct way, i.e. by measuring EBC pH together with CO2 concentration in the samples. Therefore, we collected EBC samples from 17 healthy subjects (10 male; mean age 25 yrs; lung function values and exhaled nitric oxide concentration in normal range; all never-smokers) and performed measurements of pH and PCO2 by a blood gas analyser directly after sampling (within 30 min) and after 10 min of deaeration using argon. Data are hereby given as mean±sd. The pre-deaeration pH was 6.70±0.24 with a PCO2 of 2.11±0.92 kPa. Argon deaeration caused a decrease in EBC PCO2 to 0.33±0.09 kPa but never to 0 kPa (p<0.0001 compared with pre-argon value), and a significant increase of the pH to 7.67±0.20 (p<0.0001; figs 1⇓ and 2⇓). There was a significant relationship between the changes in EBC PCO2 and that of pH. Furthermore, in line with the observation by Z.L. Borrill and coworkers, there was a relationship between baseline EBC pH and the observed pH increase (r2 = 0.53; p = 0.001). The observed increase in pH (mean increase of 0.97) in our healthy subjects was similar to that observed by Z.L. Borrill and coworkers in asthmatic and COPD patients. Our data are also in agreement with the suggestion by Z.L. Borrill and coworkers that a deaeration-caused pH change is a surrogate for CO2 concentration to some extent; however, a simple pH measurement cannot give an estimate of the remaining CO2 content that may still influence the pH reading.

Fig. 1—
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1—

The effect of gas standardisation on exhaled breath condensate (EBC) partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PCO2).

Fig. 2—
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2—

The effect of gas standardisation on exhaled breath condensate (EBC) pH.

In summary, argon deaeration decreases the concentration and the variability of exhaled breath condensate partial pressure of CO2, but there is always some remaining CO2 that may still be a confounding factor in pH assessment. CO2 content has a marked influence on exhaled breath condensate pH and, since exhaled breath condensate partial pressure of CO2 varies even after deaeration, it leaves some uncertainty in the exhaled breath condensate pH reading even after deaeration. It seems worthwhile to carry out some more research to define other potential modes of standardisation of this measurement, to learn more about the different factors that may influence exhaled breath condensate pH and the relationship between the pH of exhaled breath condensate and that of the airways.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Hungarian National Research Foundation (T43396).

    • © ERS Journals Ltd
    PreviousNext
    Back to top
    View this article with LENS
    Vol 28 Issue 1 Table of Contents
    European Respiratory Journal: 28 (1)
    • Table of Contents
    • Index by author
    Email

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    From the authors
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
    CAPTCHA
    This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
    Print
    Citation Tools
    From the authors
    I. Horvath, B. Szili, T. Kullmann
    European Respiratory Journal Jul 2006, 28 (1) 252-253; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.06.00033506

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero

    Share
    From the authors
    I. Horvath, B. Szili, T. Kullmann
    European Respiratory Journal Jul 2006, 28 (1) 252-253; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.06.00033506
    del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
    Full Text (PDF)

    Jump To

    • Article
      • Acknowledgments
    • Figures & Data
    • Info & Metrics
    • PDF
    • Tweet Widget
    • Facebook Like
    • Google Plus One

    More in this TOC Section

    • Clinical outcomes of bronchiectasis in India
    • Reply: Clinical outcomes of bronchiectasis in India
    • Risk factors for disease progression in fibrotic hypersensitivity pneumonitis
    Show more Correspondence

    Related Articles

    Navigate

    • Home
    • Current issue
    • Archive

    About the ERJ

    • Journal information
    • Editorial board
    • Reviewers
    • Press
    • Permissions and reprints
    • Advertising

    The European Respiratory Society

    • Society home
    • myERS
    • Privacy policy
    • Accessibility

    ERS publications

    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS books online
    • ERS Bookshop

    Help

    • Feedback

    For authors

    • Instructions for authors
    • Publication ethics and malpractice
    • Submit a manuscript

    For readers

    • Alerts
    • Subjects
    • Podcasts
    • RSS

    Subscriptions

    • Accessing the ERS publications

    Contact us

    European Respiratory Society
    442 Glossop Road
    Sheffield S10 2PX
    United Kingdom
    Tel: +44 114 2672860
    Email: journals@ersnet.org

    ISSN

    Print ISSN:  0903-1936
    Online ISSN: 1399-3003

    Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society