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


     

Clinical Chemistry 40: 1528-1531, 1994;
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 Hubl, W.
Right arrow Articles by Bayer, P. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hubl, W.
Right arrow Articles by Bayer, P. M.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 40, 1528-1531, Copyright © 1994 by American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Enzymatic determination of sodium, potassium, and chloride in abnormal (hemolyzed, icteric, lipemic, paraproteinemic, or uremic) serum samples compared with indirect determination with ion-selective electrodes

W Hubl, R Wejbora, I Shafti-Keramat, A Haider, P Hajdusich and PM Bayer
Central Lab, Wilhelminenspital, Vienna, Austria.

We evaluated the effect of hemolysis, icteric discoloration, lipemia, paraproteinemia, and uremia on enzymatic methods for determining sodium, potassium, and chloride, according to the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards EP7-P proposals for testing interference from endogenous substances. The sodium, potassium, and chloride assays (reagent kits supplied by Boehringer Mannheim) were based on electrolyte-dependent beta-galactosidase, pyruvate kinase, and alpha-amylase, respectively. The results were compared with those obtained by indirect ion-selective electrodes (ISE), which in turn had been validated by flame photometry. We analyzed the samples with Hitachi 717, 737, and 911 chemistry analyzers and with an IL943 flame photometer. The enzymatic results were in good agreement with those by ISE, the interference-related differences generally being without clinical significance; however, none of the enzymatic methods could analyze grossly lipemic samples.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1994 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.