Clinical Chemistry Email Content Delivery
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 15: 248-254, 1969;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an electronic Letter to
the Editor about this paper
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Stitcher, J. E.
Right arrow Articles by Hill, R. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Stitcher, J. E.
Right arrow Articles by Hill, R. M.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 15, 248-254, Copyright © 1969 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Comparison of Dumas and Kjeldahl Methods for Determination of Nitrogen in Feces

Joseph E. Stitcher 1, Carl R. Jolliff 1, and Robert M. Hill 1

1 Clinical Laboratories Section, Lincoln Clinic, 3145 "O" St., Lincoln, Neb. 68510.

The present study was undertaken to compare the nitrogen content of human feces as determined by the Kjeldahl technic and the micro-Dumas method as utilized in the automated Coleman nitrogen analyzer. The standard deviation between duplicate determinations of the same sample was 0.06% nitrogen in the case of the nitrogen analyzer and 0.02% nitrogen for the Kjeldahl method. The standard deviation between the average values obtained by each method for each sample was 0.07% nitrogen. The agreement between the two methods seemed to be independent of the nitrogen content. The apparent recovery of nitrogen by the nitrogen analyzer was found to be greater than that recovered by the Kjeldahl procedure. Factors which may be involved in this difference in recovery between the two methods are discussed.

Submitted on July 1, 1968
Accepted on July 25, 1968






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1969 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.