NeuroImage 47 (2009) T5–T9

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

NeuroImage
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / y n i m g

Sniffing out cancer using the JPL electronic nose: A pilot study of a novel approach to
detection and differentiation of brain cancer
Babak Kateb a,b,d,⁎, M.A. Ryan c, M.L. Homer c, L.M. Lara c, Yufang Yin d, Kerin Higa d, Mike Y. Chen d
a
International Brain Mapping and Intraoperative Surgical Planning Society (IBMISPS.org), USA
b
Brain Mapping Foundation, 8159 Santa Monica Blvd. #200, West Hollywood, CA 90046, USA
c
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, 4800 Oak Grove Dr. Pasadena, CA 91109, USA
d
City of Hope Cancer Center, 1500 East Duarte Road Duarte, CA 91010, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A proof-of-concept study was done to determine whether an electronic nose developed for air quality
Received 10 February 2009 monitoring at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) could be used to distinguish between the odors of organ
Revised 1 April 2009 and tumor tissues, with an eye to using such a device as one of several modes in multi-modal imaging and
Accepted 2 April 2009
tumor differentiation during surgery.
Available online 9 April 2009
Hypothesis: We hypothesized that the JPL electronic nose (ENose) would be able to distinguish between the
Keywords:
odors of various organ and tumor tissues.
Electronic nose Materials and methods: The odor signatures, or array response, of two organs, chicken heart and chicken liver,
Sensor array and cultured glioblastoma and melanoma tumor cell lines were recorded using the JPL Electronic Nose. The
Brain tumor overall array responses were compared to determine whether they were sufficiently different to allow the
Sniffing cancer organs and cell lines to be identified by their array responses.
Cancer odor Results: The ENose was able to distinguish between the two types of organ tissue and between the two types
Glioblastoma of tumor cell lines. The variation in array response for the organ tissues was 19% and between the two types
Melanoma
of cultured cell lines was 22%.
Conclusion: This study shows that it is possible to use an electronic nose to distinguish between two types of
tumor cells and between two types of organ tissue. As we conducted the experiment with a sensor array built
for air quality monitoring rather than for medical purposes, it may be possible to select an array that is
optimized to distinguish between different types of cells and organ tissues. Further focused studies are
needed to investigate the odor signatures of different cells as well as cellular proliferation, growth,
differentiation and infiltration.
© 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction resulting in resistance changes. The pattern of sensor response

The senses of sight, touch, hearing and smell are tools that
physicians have long relied upon for diagnosis. Olfaction is very
important because it can alert the physician to harmful chemical
species existing in the gaseous phase. These hazardous materials
could induce cellular injuries and be a source of irreversible damage,
or can be indicators of infectious diseases and even cell death. The
significance of this sense in medical as well as other fields has led, over
the last few decades, to development of artificial, “electronic noses”
which mimic the human olfactory system.
In the body, smell starts when molecules dissolved in mucus
contact receptors of sensory neuron cilia resulting in depolarization.
The electronic nose functions in a similar manner; odorants come in
contact with an array of partially selective chemical sensors
⁎ Corresponding author. City of Hope Cancer Center, 1500 East Duarte Road Duarte,
California 91010, USA.
E-mail address: Bkateb@IBMISPS.org (B. Kateb).
across the array is deconvoluted by pattern-recognition software to
identify single chemical species or mixtures of species; using an
array of four or more sensors, several different chemical species or
fixed mixtures of species may be identified. There are a number of
research groups working on the development of electronic noses,
and the chemical sensing surfaces used in electronic nose arrays
include many different types of materials, such as metal oxides,
inorganic sol-gels, polymers, organo-metallic compounds, and
biological materials. The sensors themselves may be potentiometric,
conductometric, electrochemical, surface acoustic wave, quartz
crystal microbalance or optical sensors.
Electronic noses are a bio-inspired technology that have been used
in various non-medical applications, including process control in the
food and beverage industry, air quality monitoring, fire detection, and
detection of explosives and chemical agents. There have been several
excellent discussions of electronic noses and their applications,
including medical applications, over the past several years. (James et
al., 2005; Reid et al., 2006; Bourgeois et al., 2003; Hammond et al.,

1053-8119/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.04.015
T6 B. Kateb et al. / NeuroImage 47 (2009) T5–T9
2008; Thaler and Hanson, 2005, Pearce et al., 2003). Currently, the JPL
ENose technology is being used by NASA on board the International
Space Station to monitor breathing air for leaks and spills of targeted
species (Ryan et al., 2004a; Ryan et al., 2008).
As electronic noses have developed and their availability has
increased, use of these devices over a broad range of medical
disciplines has become more common. Researchers have used
similar technologies to analyze the breath or urine of diabetic
patients and have showed significant differences compared to
controls (Yu et al., 2005; Mohamed et al., 2002). Others have
used electronic noses for detecting infections in the ear, nose, and
throat with more than 88% accuracy (Shykhon et al., 2004).
Concordantly, Hanson et al. successfully correlated pneumonia to
electronic nose data over a 4 month period in 38 patients (Hanson
and Thaler, 2005). Likewise, Hockstein et al. correlated pneumonia
with electronic nose patterns in 44 patients and concluded that the
technology had promise as a diagnostic adjunct in the management
of ventilator-associated pneumonia (Hockstein et al., 2005). Dutta et
al. were able to identify two species of Staphylococcus aureus in the
hospital environment with 99.96% accuracy (Dutta et al., 2005). The
technology has also been used for assessment of renal function
(Voss et al., 2005), oral malodor (Tanaka et al., 2004), body odor
differences between genders (Penn et al., 2007), unpleasant odor in
coated pharmaceutical tablets (Ohmori et al., 2005), body odor of
schizophrenic patients (Di Natale et al., 2005), skin odor sampling,
monthly variation of volatile compounds in female sweat (Mantini
et al., 2000) and distinguishing cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) from
serum (Aronzon et al., 2005).
Another medical application that is being explored is the use of
electronic noses to detect cancer. Interestingly, the ability to detect
a smell related to cancer has been described in canine studies
(Gordon et al., 2008). Willis, Pickel and McCulloch demonstrated in
separate studies that dogs could be trained to detect bladder, skin
and lung cancers, respectively (Willis et al., 2004; Pickel et al.,
2004; McCulloch et al., 2006) Correspondingly, D'Amico showed
that an electronic nose has the potential to distinguish melano-
matous lesions from benign skin lesions (D'Amico et al., 2008).
Breath analysis using an electronic nose has also been used to
identify chemicals in human breath related to lung cancer (Chen et
al., 2007; Di Francesco et al., 2005; Machado et al., 2005; Di Natale
et al., 2003). Recently, investigators have demonstrated that tumor
cell lines, including adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and
mesothelioma, have distinct response patterns using an electronic
nose, and that they may be distinguished from each other and from
the normal fibroblast and smooth muscle cells (Gendron et al.,
2007).
Thus far, there are no published studies on the use of this
technology for detection and differentiation of brain cancers. We
hypothesized that the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's (JPL) electronic nose
(ENose) would be able to distinguish between the odors of various
organ and tumor tissues. In this preliminary, proof-of-concept study,
we investigated the odor signatures of individual organs of chicken
such as liver and heart as well as human glioblastoma and human
melanoma tumor cell lines.
Materials and methods
Sensors
The JPL ENose detector is comprised of 16 sensors with uniquely
coated polymer-carbon black composite films (Table 1). As the
vapor environment across the sensors changes and vapors sorb into
and out of the polymer-carbon composite films, the resistance
across the film changes. The JPL ENose sensing array and methods of
fabricating sensors has been discussed in detail elsewhere (Ryan et
al., 2004a; Ryan et al., 2004b). For this study, we used a sensing
Table 1
Coatings placed on polymer-carbon black composite films.
Poly-4-vinyl phenol (composite A)
Poly-4-vinyl phenol (composite B)
Poly-2,4,6-tribromostyrene (composite A)
Poly-2,4,6-tribromostyrene composite B)
Polystyrene-co-maleic acid
Poly-2,2,2-trifluoroethyl methacrylate (composite A)
Poly-2,2,2-trifluoroethyl methacrylate composite B)
Poly(t-butylaminoethyl methacrylate (composite A)
Polyethylene-co-acrylic acid (composite A)
Polystyrene (composite A)
Soluble polyimide (composite A)
Ethyl cellulose (composite A)
Polyamide resin (composite A)
Styrene/isoprene, 14/86 ABA block polymer(composite A)
Vinyl alcohol/vinyl butyral, 20/80 (composite A)
Ethylene-propylene diene terpolymer (composite A)
Different coatings on each element of the sensor array results in elements that have
overlapping affinities for volatile compounds.
array which had been optimized to detect targeted species on board
the International Space Station.
Samples
Two types of cell lines were used for the experiments, and each
cell line was used to create two different types of samples: pellet
samples and dish samples. The first type of sample is a cell sample
centrifuged into pellets. The second type of sample is plated cells in
a culture dish. A human glioblastoma (U251) and a human
melanoma (A2058) cell line were used to create the different
types of samples.
In the first type of cell sample, the cells were centrifuged into
pellets and then transferred into 50 mL glass test tubes. Cell lines were
maintained in 10-mL flasks in medium (Dulbecco's Modified Eagle's
Medium, DMEM). Cells were plated onto 100 mm dishes 4 days prior
to the analysis. The cells were then trypsinized, neutralized with
medium, centrifuged into pellets and transferred into 50-mL test
tubes, stored for 2 hours at 37 °C, and then transported at room
temperature while kept in medium. Four preparations, each in
triplicate, were used: 3 × 105 A2058 cells, 1 × 106 A2058 cells, 3 × 105
U251 cells, and 1 × 106 U251 cells. This gave us a total of 12 pellets for
testing.
The second type of cell samples were made under the same
conditions as the first except that plated cells were left adherent to the
culture dishes. In addition to the cell line samples there were organ
samples. Chicken livers and hearts were ground into a paste and put
into culture dishes.
ENose experimental configuration
We used two experimental configurations to test the “odor” of the
different cells. In both configurations the air in the head space above
the cells was pulled into the ENose sensing chamber by a pump
incorporated into the ENose instrument. A Teflon-lined Tygon tube
was connected to the air inlet of ENose and held over the head space. A
sketch of the ENose is shown in Fig. 1.
In the pellet-test tube configuration (condition 1), the air tube
was inserted into the test tube 3 cm from the cell pellet and held
in place with Parafilm. The film was not held tightly over the top of
the test tube, so room air could replace the air removed by the
ENose pump.
In the second configuration the head space from culture dishes was
sampled by connecting the Tygon tubing to a dish cover to which a
piece of glass tubing had been attached (Fig. 2). In this way the head
space was sampled at a fixed distance from the samples in all
 B. Kateb et al. / NeuroImage 47 (2009) T5–T9
Fig. 1. The JPL electronic nose. The white line describes the path of the air sample
through the unit. Air is pulled in from the sample, passes through a filter (pink area in
figure), goes through a valve, and is dispersed in the sensing chamber (central blue
area). There are four ceramic sensor substrates in the sensing chamber, and the unit
may be operated with 16–32 sensors.
experiments. This configuration was used for both cell samples in a
culture dish and organ tissues in a culture dish.
To determine the pattern of response of the sensor array to a
sample, or array fingerprint, a baseline was first established by
allowing the ENose sensors to equilibrate to the surrounding room air.
Once the baseline was established, the head space from the samples
was pulled over the ENose sensing array by the pump until a steady-
state resistance was reached, about 15 min. Data were taken to
establish the signature of DMEM, followed by the cell samples, and
finally the organ tissues. Between each sample, the sensors were
allowed to equilibrate to air or to DMEM. For cell samples, data were
taken first with a layer of medium covering the sample and then with
the medium decanted.
Data acquisition and analysis
ENose data are recorded as the DC resistance of each sensor
every 20 s. Array fingerprints for each sample (the “odor signature”)
were constructed by plotting the data as a histogram, where the
height of the bars in the histogram correspond to the steady-state,
normalized change in resistance for each sensor, (R − R0) / R0. R0 is
the resistance of the sensor averaged over the 5 min before a
reading is taken, and R is the resistance of the sensor averaged over
5 min after it has reached steady state upon being exposed to a
sample. In all experiments described below data were taken on an
array of 16 sensors; one element was not working, so data were
collected from 15 of the 16 elements. For multiple samples of the
same material, the response for each sensor is averaged to construct
the corresponding bar in the fingerprint histogram.
Fig. 2. The cover used on the culture plates to sample the headspace above the cultured
cells. Air is pulled out through the center tube, through a Teflon-lined Tygon tube to the
ENose. Air pressure remains static as air enters through the other tubes.
T7
Fig. 3. ENose sensor array fingerprint pattern of U251 and A2058 cell lines. While there
are some similarities between the patterns (e.g. sensor five has a negative response for
both cell types), the measurable difference on the overall pattern is 22%. The ratio of
response between sensor 3 and sensor 4 shows the most dramatic change between the
two cell lines. Upper: the overall array response. Lower: an expanded response scale to
show which sensors are responsible for the difference in response.
Array fingerprint distinguishability was determined as the percent
variation from one pattern to another. Variation is computed by
summing the magnitude of the fractional difference for each sensor
response and dividing by the number of sensors:
Σð j RnA − RnB j =RnA Þ
:
N
RnA is the response of sensor n to material A, RnB is the response of
sensor n to material B and N is the total number of sensors. Variation
less than 10% is not sufficient to distinguish one array signal from
another, because the 5% error in each sensor response could result in a
variation of 5% for two samples of the same material.
Results
The first experiment examined whether cultured cells could be
distinguished from the medium in which they are cultured. The
fingerprint pattern of culture medium with A2058 or U251 (3 × 105
cells each) were compared with the fingerprint pattern of the cells
with medium decanted. Comparison of the array patterns indicates
that there is a significant difference between the signatures of the
medium alone and the medium with the cells. For the A2058
melanoma cells, the array fingerprint distinguishability of the medium
and cells varied by 77%. For U251 cells, the variation was 44%. Three
measurements were averaged for each sample. Error on each sensor
response in the histogram was 5%. There were not enough trials to
compute a standard deviation, so error is reported as the fluctuation in
sensor response.
Next we determined whether the number of cells initially plated in
culture influences the odor fingerprint or array pattern. The total
variation across a 15 element array between 3 × 105 and 1 × 106 A2058
cells was 8%, which was not a significant difference. For U251 cells, the
T8 B. Kateb et al. / NeuroImage 47 (2009) T5–T9
difference in array patterns between the 3 × 105 vs. 1 × 106 cells was
49%, which was significant.
We then determined the variance in the fingerprints between
A2058 and U251 cells. The head space of three samples of 1 × 106 cells
of each cell line was analyzed. A comparison of the fingerprint for each
cell line is shown in Fig. 3. The lower portion of Fig. 3 is an expansion
of the portion of the array fingerprint histogram; as can be seen in the
figure, sensors 4–10 contribute most to the variation in the response
pattern between the two cell lines.
While the patterns of the two cell lines in Fig. 3 look similar, (e.g.
sensor five has a negative response for both cell types), there are very
distinct differences. Looking at ratios between sensors can help
illustrate that. If you compare the ratio of responses from sensor 3 to
sensor 4 you will see that the response to U251 is roughly 1:1 whereas
for A2058 sensor 3:sensor 4 is about 1:2. When the differences are
calculated, as described earlier, we see that the variation in these two
cell lines is 22%.
The fourth experiment compared the sensor array response to two
types of uncooked organ tissue, chicken liver and chicken heart. The
ENose was able to distinguish between the two types of tissue; the
variation in array response to the two types of tissue was 19%.
Discussion
In this preliminary study, we used the JPL ENose to differentiate
human glioblastoma cells from human melanoma and ground up
chicken liver from chicken heart. The JPL ENose passed a gross
sensitivity test as it was able to distinguish ground liver and heart, a
distinction readily apparent to human olfaction. We then showed
that culture medium was not a confounding factor and that the
ENose was able to detect cells submerged in medium. In examining
the influence of starting cell density on the odor signature, a
significant effect was seen in only the glioblastoma cell cultures.
Both cell lines grew rapidly and became very confluent. One
possible explanation is that in comparison to human melanoma
cells, the cellular biology of human glioblastoma cells changes more
dramatically as cultures reach confluence. Finally, the odor signa-
tures of the glioblastoma and melanoma cell lines varied signifi-
cantly, suggesting that different cancers have unique smells. These
findings correlate to those reported by Gendron et al. who
published the first and only other report of using an electronic
nose to examine cancer cells in vitro (Gendron et al., 2007).
One significant aspect of this study and many others using
electronic nose technology is that the etiology of odor signature
differences between tissues, normal or abnormal, is unclear. Di Natale
et al. suggested that alkanes and benzene derivatives allow for the
detection of lung tumors in breath analysis (Di Natale et al., 2003).
Balseiro and Correia have hypothesized that the cell's major
histocompatibility complex is a significant determinant of tissue
odor (Balseiro and Correia, 2006). As further studies elucidate the
odor differences between different types of tissues it may become
possible to identify and differentiate, by odor analysis, a whole range
of types of cells, including cancer cells in different stages, malignant
and benign tumors.
Whatever the etiology, the functional significance of tissue odors is
also poorly understood. Interestingly, the ability of an odor to modulate
cellular biology is best illustrated in sperm. In 1992, Parmentier et al.
demonstrated the expression of an olfactory receptor gene family in
sperm (Parmentier et al., 1992). In 1997, Vanderhaeghen et al. further
elaborated that in humans and dogs there are specific olfactory
receptors broadly scattered throughout the human genome that
potentially influence sperm maturation, migration and fertilization
(Vanderhaeghen et al., 1997a; Vanderhaeghen et al., February 1997b).
Subsequently, Spehr et al. demonstrated that sperm possess particular
odorant receptors (Human Olfactory Receptor 17-4) that mediate
sperm inhibition and activation (Spehr et al., 2003) which leads to
speculation that there may be other odorants and receptor mechan-
isms influencing general cellular trafficking.
Conclusion
This study shows that it is possible to use an electronic nose to
distinguish between two types of tumor cells and between two types
of organ tissue. As we conducted the experiment with a sensor array
built for JPL rather than medical purposes, it may be possible to select
an array which is optimized to distinguish between different types of
cells and organ tissues. While our work has shown that there is a
difference in chemical composition of the headspace above cells in
vitro, we did not isolate specific factors that caused these differences.
As the data boundaries are established for medical applications,
researchers will be able to optimize sensing arrays for specific tasks,
color code signals and possibly turn them into images that could be
used as part of multi-modality intraoperative approach for detection
and treatment of brain cancers. Ultimately, once a database of diseases
and their related smells is established, we hope to have a device that
can assist diagnosis in the clinical setting while requiring minimal
specialized training.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare there is no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgments
The research reported in this paper was carried out at the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under a
contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and
at the City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte CA. We thank the Brain
Tumor Foundation and International Brain Mapping and Intraopera-
tive Surgical Planning Society (IBMISPS) for their generous support of
this work.
References
Aronzon, A., Hanson, C.W., Thaler, E.R., 2005. Differentiation between cerebrospinal
fluid and serum with electronic nose. Otolaryngol.-Head Neck Surg. 133 (1),
16–19.
Balseiro, S.C., Correia, H.R., 2006. Is olfactory detection of human cancer by dogs based
on major histocompatibility complex dependent odour components? A possible
cure and a precocious diagnosis of cancer. Med. Hypotheses 66 (2), 270–272.
Bourgeois, W., Romain, A.C., Nicolas, J., et al., 2003. The use of sensor arrays for
environmental monitoring: interests and limitations. J. Environ. Monit. 5 (6),
852–860.
Chen, X., Xu, F., Wang, Y., et al., 2007. A study of the volatile organic compounds exhaled
by lung cancer cells in vitro for breath diagnosis. Cancer 110 (4), 835–844.
D’Amico, A., Bono, R., Pennazza, G., Santonico, M., Mantini, G., Bernabei, M., Zarlenga, M.,
Roscioni, C., Martinelli, E., Paolesse, R., Di Natale, C., 2008. Identification of melanoma
with a gas sensor array. Skin Res. Technol. 14 (2), 226–236.
Di Francesco, F., Fuoco, R., Trivella, M.G., Ceccarini, A., 2005. Breath analysis: trends in
techniques and clinical applications. Microchem. J. 79 (1–2), 405–410.
Di Natale, C., Macagnano, A., Martinelli, E., et al., 2003. Lung cancer identification by the
analysis of breath by means of an array of non-selective gas sensors. Biosens.
Bioelectron. 18 (10), 1209–1218.
Di Natale, C., Paolesse, R., D Arcangelo , G., et al., 2005. Identification of schizophrenic
patients by examination of body odor using gas chromatography–mass spectro-
metry and a cross-selective gas sensor array. Med. Sci. Monit. 11 (8), CR366–CR375.
Dutta, R., Morgan, D., Baker, N., Gardner, J.W., Hines, E.L., 2005. Identification of Sta-
phylococcus aureus infections in hospital environment: electronic nose based
approach. Sens. Actuators, B 29 (2), 355–362.
Gendron, K.B., Hockstein, N.G., Thaler, E.R., et al., 2007. In vitro discrimination of tumor
cell lines with an electronic nose. Otolaryngol.-Head Neck Surg. 137 (2), 269–273.
Gordon, R.T., Schatz, C.B., Myers, L.J., et al., 2008. The use of canines in the detection of
human cancers. J. Altern. Complement. Med. 14 (1), 61–67.
Hammond, M.H., Rose-Pehrsson, S.L., Gottuk, D.T., et al., 2008. Cermet microsensors for
fire detection. Sens. Actuators, B,-Chem. 130 (1), 240–248.
Hanson, C.W., Thaler, E.R., 2005. Electronic nose prediction of a clinical pneumonia
score: biosensors and microbes. Anesthesiology 102 (1), 63–68.
Hockstein, N.G., Thaler, E.R., Lin, Y.Q., Lee, D.D., Hanson, C.W., 2005. Correlation of
pneumonia score with electronic nose signature: a prospective study. Ann. Otol.
Rhinol. Laryngol. 114 (7), 504–508.
James, D., Scott, S.M., Ali, Z., et al., 2005. Chemical sensors for electronic nose systems.
Microchim. Acta 149 (1–2), 1–17.
 B. Kateb et al. / NeuroImage 47 (2009) T5–T9
Machado, R.F., Laskowski, D., Deffenderfer, O., et al., 2005. Detection of lung cancer by
sensor array analyses of exhaled breath. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 171 (11),
1286–1291.
Mantini, A., Di Natale, C., Macagnano, A., Paolesse, R., Finazzi-Agro, A., D amico , A.,
2000. Biomedical application of an electronic nose. Crit. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 28 (3–4),
481–485.
McCulloch, M., Jezierski, T., Broffman, M., Hubbard, A., Turner, K., Janecki, T., 2006.
Diagnostic accuracy of canine scent detection in early- and late-stage lung and
breast cancers. Integr. Cancer Ther. 5 (1), 30–39.
Mohamed, E.I., Linder, R., Perriello, G., et al., 2002. Predicting Type 2 diabetes using an
electronic nose-base artificial neural network analysis. Diabetes Nutr. Metab. 15 (4),
215–221.
Ohmori, S., Ohno, Y., Makino, T., Kashihara, T., 2005. Application of an electronic nose
system for evaluation of unpleasant odor in coated tables. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm.
59, 289–297.
Parmentier, M., Libert, F., Schurmans, S., Schiffmann, S., Lefort, A., Eggerickx, D.,
Ledent, C., Mollereau, C., Gérard, C., Perret, J., 1992. Expression of members of
the putative olfactory receptor gene family in mammalian germ cells. Nature
355 (6359), 453–455.
Pearce, T.C., Schiffman, S.S., Nagle, H.T., Gardner, J.W. (Eds.), 2003. Handbook of Machine
Olfaction: Electronic Nose Technology. Weinheim, Wiley VCH.
Penn, D.J., Oberzaucher, E., Grammer, K., et al., 2007. Individual and gender fingerprints
in human body odour. J. R. Soc. Interface 4 (13), 331–340.
Pickel, D., Manucy, G.P., Walker, D.B., Hall, S.B., Walker, J.C., 2004. Evidence for canine
olfactory detection of melanoma. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 89 (1–2), 107–116.
Reid, L.M., O Donnell , C.P., Downey, G., 2006. Recent technological advances for the
determination of food authenticity. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 17 (7), 344–353.
Ryan, M.A., Zhou, H., Buehler, M.G., et al., 2004a. Monitoring space shuttle air quality
using the JPL electronic nose. IEEE Sens. J. 4 (3), 337–347.
T9
Ryan, M.A., Shevade, A.V., Zhou, H., et al., 2004b. Polymer-carbon-composite sensors for
an electronic nose air quality monitor. MRS Bull. 29 (10), 714–719.
Ryan, M.A., Shevade, A.V., Kisor, A.K., et al., 2008. Ground validation of the third
generation JPL electronic nose. Proc. 38th Int. Conf. Environ. Syst. 2008–01-2044.
Shykhon, M.E., Morgan, D.W., Dutta, R., Hines, E.L., Gardner, J.W., 2004. Clinical
evaluation of the electronic nose in the diagnosis of ear, nose and throat infection: a
preliminary study. J. Laryngol. Otol. 118 (9), 706–709.
Tanaka, M., Anguri, H., Nonaka, A., Kataoka, K., Nagata, H., Kita, J., Shizukuishi, S., 2004.
Clinical assessment of oral malodor by the electronic nose system. J. Dent. Res. 83
(4), 317–321.
Thaler, E.R., Hanson, C.W., 2005. Medical applications of electronic nose technology.
Exp. Rev. Med. Devices 2 (5), 559–566.
Spehr, M., Gisselmann, G., Poplawski, A., Riffell, J.A., Wetzel, C.H., Zimmer, R.K., Hatt, H.,
2003. Identification of a testicular odorant receptor mediating human sperm
chemotaxis. Science 299 (5615), 2054–2058 Mar 28.
Vanderhaeghen, P., Schurmans, S., Vassart, G., Parmentier, M., 1997a. Specific repertoire
of olfactory receptor genes in the male germ cells of several mammalian species.
Genomics 39 (3), 239–246 Feb 1.
Vanderhaeghen, P., Schurmans, S., Vassart, G., Parmentier, M., 1997b. Molecular cloning
and chromosomal mapping of olfactory receptor genes expressed in the male germ
line: evidence for their wide distribution in the human genome. Biochem. Biophys.
Res. Commun. 237 (2), 283–287 Aug 18.
Voss, A., Baier, V., Reisch, R., et al., 2005. Smelling renal dysfunction via electronic nose.
Ann. Biomed. Eng. 33 (5), 656–660.
Willis, C.M., Church, S.M., Guest, C.M., Cook, W.A., Mccarthy, N., Bransbury, A.J., Church,
M.R.T., Church, J.C.T., 2004. Olfactory detection of human bladder cancer by dogs:
proof of principle study. Br. Med. J. 329 (7468), 712–714A.
Yu, J.B., Byun, H.G., So, M.S., Huh, J.S., 2005. Analysis of diabetic patient's breath with
conducting polymer sensor array. Sens. Actuators, B,-Chem. 108, 305–308.