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


     

Clinical Chemistry 31: 1172-1174, 1985;
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 Smeyers-Verbeke, J.
Right arrow Articles by Verbeelen, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Smeyers-Verbeke, J.
Right arrow Articles by Verbeelen, D.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 31, 1172-1174, Copyright © 1985 by American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Determination of aluminum in bone by atomic absorption spectroscopy

J Smeyers-Verbeke and D Verbeelen

In developing this method for determination of Al in bone we paid special attention to the homogenization of bone samples, which presents great difficulties for trace-element analysis. To minimize the risk of contamination, we preferred low-temperature ashing over classical wet- digestion techniques for destruction of the organic material. Graphite- furnace atomic absorption spectroscopy is used for measurement of Al. For Al concentrations exceeding 15 micrograms/g, direct standardization against a calibration line can be used (between-run CV, 5.9%). For Al concentrations within the normal range (less than 15 micrograms/g) the standard-addition technique should be applied. Comparison of results by the method with those by a procedure based on extraction of Al with a saturated solution of EDTA revealed that, although the latter method gave considerably lower results for three of 13 samples, there was no statistical difference between results by the two methods.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1985 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.