Application of Volatile Organic Compound Analysis in a Nutritional Intervention Study: Differential Responses during Five Hours Following Consumption of a High- and a Low-Fat Dairy Drink

13Citations
Citations of this article
42Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Scope: Exhaled volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are a possible relevant target for noninvasive assessment of metabolic responses. Using a breathomics approach, it is aimed to explore whether lipid intake influences VOC profiles in exhaled air, and to obtain insight in intra- and interindividual variations. Methods and results: Three human interventions are performed. In the first, 12 males consume a high-fat drink on three study days. In the second, 12 males receive a high- and a low-fat drink on 6 days. In the third, three volunteers consume the high-fat drink again for tentative compound identification. Participants are asked to exhale, for 5 h postprandial with 15–20 min intervals, into a proton-transfer-reaction mass spectrometer, and VOCs in exhaled air are measured. Consumption of a drink alters the VOC profile, with considerable interindividual variation and quantitative intraindividual differences between days. Consumption of two different drinks results in a distinct VOC profile, caused by several specific m/z values. Most of these compounds are identified as being related to ketone body formation and lipid oxidation, showing an increase in high- versus low-fat drink. Conclusion: Exhaled VOCs have the potential to assess differences in metabolic responses induced by nutrition, especially when day-to-day variation can be minimized.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hageman, J. H. J., Nieuwenhuizen, A. G., van Ruth, S. M., Hageman, J. A., & Keijer, J. (2019). Application of Volatile Organic Compound Analysis in a Nutritional Intervention Study: Differential Responses during Five Hours Following Consumption of a High- and a Low-Fat Dairy Drink. Molecular Nutrition and Food Research, 63(20). https://doi.org/10.1002/mnfr.201900189

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free