Suppr超能文献

三种分析仪锂测定的评估:火焰发射法、火焰原子吸收光谱法和离子选择性电极法。

Evaluation of lithium determination in three analyzers: flame emission, flame atomic absorption spectroscopy and ion selective electrode.

作者信息

Aliasgharpour Mehri, Hagani Hamid

机构信息

Department of Biochemistry, National Reference Laboratory, Ministry of Health and Medical Education of Iran, Tehran, Iran.

出版信息

N Am J Med Sci. 2009 Oct;1(5):244-6. doi: 10.4297/najms.2009.5244.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Lithium carbonate salt has become an increasingly important substance in the treatment of manic depressive disorders, and its relatively narrow therapeutic range has caused laboratories to monitor the serum concentration carefully. In the present work we evaluated lithium measurement in 3 different analyzers. METHODS #ENTITYSTARTX00026;

MATERIALS

Three different analyzers including Flame Emission (FES), Flame Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (FAAS), and Ion Selective Electrode (ISE) were used. All chemicals had a grade suitable for trace metal analysis.

RESULTS

Within-day precision of CV was ≤ 1.5% for FES & FAAS, except for ISE (1.9% CV). Between-days precision of CV was less for FES than for FAAS and ISE (1.3% versus 2.2% & 2.3%). The percent recovery of added lithium in pooled patients' serum was higher for ISE than for FASS and FES (103.4% versus 96.2% and 94.6%). We also obtained a higher average lithium concentration for patients' serum samples (n=16) measured by ISE than for FAAS and FES (0.825±0.30 versus 0.704±0.26 & 0.735±0.19). Paired t-test results revealed a significant difference (p< 0.001) for patient sera analyzed with FAAS and ISE.

CONCLUSION

We report higher results for ISE than the other two analyzers and conclude that the choice between the two flame methods for patients' serum lithium determination is arbitrary and that FES analyzer is a more attractive routine alternative for lithium determination than FAAS because of its cost and ease of performance. In addition, the results obtained by ISE are precise. However, its accuracy may depend on other interfering factors.

摘要

背景

碳酸锂盐在躁狂抑郁症的治疗中已成为一种日益重要的物质,其相对较窄的治疗范围使得实验室需仔细监测血清浓度。在本研究中,我们评估了3种不同分析仪对锂的测量。

方法与材料

使用了3种不同的分析仪,包括火焰发射光谱法(FES)、火焰原子吸收光谱法(FAAS)和离子选择电极法(ISE)。所有化学试剂的等级均适用于痕量金属分析。

结果

FES和FAAS的日内变异系数(CV)精密度≤1.5%,ISE除外(CV为1.9%)。FES的日间CV精密度低于FAAS和ISE(1.3%对2.2%和2.3%)。ISE对合并患者血清中添加锂的回收率高于FASS和FES(103.4%对96.2%和94.6%)。我们还发现,通过ISE测量的患者血清样本(n = 16)的平均锂浓度高于FAAS和FES(0.825±0.30对0.704±0.26和0.735±0.19)。配对t检验结果显示,用FAAS和ISE分析的患者血清存在显著差异(p < 0.001)。

结论

我们报告ISE的结果高于其他两种分析仪,并得出结论,在两种火焰法中选择用于患者血清锂测定是任意的,并且由于成本和操作简便,FES分析仪比FAAS更具吸引力,是锂测定的常规替代方法。此外,ISE获得的结果是精确的。然而,其准确性可能取决于其他干扰因素。

相似文献

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验