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


     


Clinical Chemistry 36: 104-110, 1990;
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 Okorodudu, A. O.
Right arrow Articles by Bowers, G. N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Okorodudu, A. O.
Right arrow Articles by Bowers, G. N., Jr

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 36, 104-110, Copyright © 1990 by American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Evaluation of three first-generation ion-selective electrode analyzers for lithium: systematic errors, frequency of random interferences, and recommendations based on comparison with flame atomic emission spectrometry

AO Okorodudu, RW Burnett, RB McComb and GN Bowers Jr
Department of Pathology, Hartford Hospital, CT 06115.

Ion-selective electrode analyzers for measuring lithium (Li/ISE) in serum became available in early 1987. We compared results for patients' samples from three of them vs results from flame atomic emission spectrometry (FAES). Within-run and day-to-day imprecision ranged from 0.01 to 0.03 mmol/L and 0.01 to 0.04 mmol/L, respectively. Comparing Li/ISE results (y) with the FAES results (x) gave the following equations: y = 1.063x - 0.035 for AMDEV's Lytening 2, y = 1.020x + 0.038 for NOVA's Model 11, and y = 1.030x - 0.027 for AVL's Model 985. Unexplained positive errors greater than 0.2 mmol/L were observed for two of the 90 patients' samples, but only a few additional excessively high values were seen in 3000 patients' samples run subsequently (Lytening 2). Causes of error in clinical Li/ISE measurements are still unclear; simply characterizing them as "matrix effects" does not correct the underlying analytical problem. An increase in pH from loss of CO2 gave low results on two of the three Li/ISE analyzers but did not change FAES results. Trimethylammonium bicarbonate used in a reconstitution solution caused extremely high Li/ISE results but did not change FAES results. Performance specifications to help reduce and correct these errors are recommended.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1990 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.