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


     


Clinical Chemistry 20: 753-760, 1974;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
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 Roels, H.
Right arrow Articles by Smeets, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Roels, H.
Right arrow Articles by Smeets, J.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 20, 753-760, Copyright © 1974 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Comparison of Four Methods for Determination of dgr-Aminolevulinic Acid in Urine, and Evaluation of Critical Factors

Harry Roels 1, Robert Lauwerys 1, Jean-Pierre Buchet 1, Alexander Berlin 1, and Jan Smeets 1

1 Unité de Toxicologie Industrielle et Médicale, Catholic University of Louvain, Avenue Chapelle-aux-Champs, 4 B-1200 Brussels (Belgium).

Four methods—two requiring ion-exchange chromatography of urine (Mauzerall-Granick; Davis-Andelman) and two omitting the chromatographic step (Grabecki et al.; Lauwerys et al.)—for determination of urinary dgr-aminolevulinic acid (I) have been compared. Experienced analysts obtained a satisfactory coefficient of variation (le5%) for each of the four methods. Over the whole concentration range of 0 to 60 mg/liter, both chromatographic methods gave identical results. At concentrations <6 mg/liter, the automated method of Lauwerys et al. gave slightly higher results than did the chromatographic methods. At concentrations >6 mg/liter the values of I obtained with the automated method were almost identical with those yielded by the chromatographic methods, whereas with the method of Grabecki et al. one-third less was found. The results for the automated method correlated better with those for the two chromatographic methods than did those for the method of Grabecki et al. Quality control of prefilled commercially available columns (Bio-Rad) and standard solutions of I (100 µg/ml) gave results with a low variability (<10%). Ionic strength and pH of urine do not influence significantly the determination of I by the automated method, but influence determination of I by the Davis—Andelman method. With or without a preservative, I can be conserved for at least two weeks, if urine is kept at 4 °C. Tartaric acid (1 g/100 ml) or acetic acid (1 ml/100 ml) are satisfactory preservatives for urine stored in darkness at room temperature; sodium azide or thymol are less effective than acidification. During storage the concentration of I in urine decreases as pH increases (above pH 6). Only a moderate effect of natural daylight was observed.


Key Words: environmental hazards • lead poisoning • toxicology • screening

Submitted on March 8, 1974
Accepted on April 30, 1974







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1974 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.