Herd S L, Vaughn W H, Goran M I
Department of Nutrition Sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA.
Obes Res. 2000 Jul;8(4):302-8. doi: 10.1038/oby.2000.36.
Isotope ratio mass spectrometry of hydrogen and oxygen is frequently used to determine total energy expenditure (TEE) using doubly labeled water. Conventionally, hydrogen isotope ratio is determined in hydrogen gas generated from water samples using zinc reduction. We compare this with a new automated platinum method to determine the ratios of hydrogen isotopes in deuterium-enriched water samples.
The platinum method of sample preparation was compared with the zinc method in three ways: analytical variation in deuterium enrichment (within sample; n = 51), analytical variation in TEE estimates (within sample set; n = 10), and level of agreement of TEE estimates between both methods (n = 14).
For the zinc method, the standard deviation for multiple sets of triplicate 2H2O sample analysis was +/-4.36 per thousand and +/-2.07 per thousand for platinum. The correlation between TEE estimates when sample sets were analyzed in duplicate was r = 0.89 for zinc and r = 0.83 for platinum. The intercept and slope of the regression line were significantly different from the line of identity for duplicate TEE estimates by zinc but were not different from the line of identity for platinum. After correction for the intra-assay variation of each method, the correlation between zinc and platinum for TEE was 0.77, and the intercept, but not the slope, of the regression was significantly different from the line of identity. The mean difference between the zinc method and the platinum method was 56 kcal/day, and the 95% confidence interval was -438 to 550 kcal/day.
These data suggest that the platinum method is at least as reliable as the zinc method as a sample preparation technique for isotope ratio mass spectrometry of deuterium-enriched water samples. The platinum method is also less costly and less labor-intensive than the zinc method.
氢氧同位素比率质谱分析法常用于通过双标记水来测定总能量消耗(TEE)。传统上,氢同位素比率是通过锌还原法从水样中产生的氢气来测定的。我们将其与一种新的自动化铂法进行比较,以测定富含氘的水样中氢同位素的比率。
通过三种方式将铂法样品制备与锌法进行比较:氘富集的分析变异(样品内;n = 51)、TEE估计值的分析变异(样品集内;n = 10)以及两种方法之间TEE估计值的一致性水平(n = 14)。
对于锌法,多组一式三份的2H2O样品分析的标准差为千分之±4.36,铂法为千分之±2.07。当对样品集进行一式两份分析时,锌法TEE估计值之间的相关性r = 0.89,铂法为r = 0.83。锌法一式两份TEE估计值的回归线截距和斜率与恒等线显著不同,但铂法与恒等线无差异。在对每种方法的批内变异进行校正后,锌法和铂法TEE之间的相关性为0.77,回归线的截距而非斜率与恒等线显著不同。锌法与铂法之间的平均差异为56千卡/天,95%置信区间为-438至550千卡/天。
这些数据表明,作为富含氘的水样同位素比率质谱分析的样品制备技术,铂法至少与锌法一样可靠。铂法也比锌法成本更低且劳动强度更小。