论文部分内容阅读
目的建立职业接触者血铅测定的微分电位溶出法(Differential potentiometric stripping method,DPDD)和氢化物发生原子荧光法(Hydride generation atomic fluorescence method,HGAF),并对两种方法进行比较。方法用DPDD法与HGAF法分别检测同一批职业接触者血清样品以及标准质控样品,以DPDD法为标准方法,以HGAF法为参比法,分析两种检测方法的相关性和相对误差。结果对血清样品的检测,两种方法高度符合(r=0.996,P<0.05),DPDD法的相对标准偏差为2.6%,加标回收率为(94.5±2.8)%;HGAF法相对标准偏差为2.8%,加标回收率为(100.0±6.4)%,两者差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两种方法质控样的检测结果均在允许范围内,且差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 DP-DD法与HGAF法检测血铅均具有较高的准确性,且一致性良好,能够满足血铅检测的要求,但HGAF法仪器价廉,分析速度快,对检测操作要求简单,适合基层单位快速检测的需要。
Objective To establish differential potentiometric stripping method (DPDD) and Hydride generation atomic fluorescence method (HGAF) for determination of blood lead levels in occupational patients and compare the two methods. Methods DPDD method and HGAF method were used to detect the serum samples of the same batch of occupational contacts and standard quality control samples respectively. The DPDD method was used as the standard method and the HGAF method was used as the reference method to analyze the correlation and relative errors between the two methods. Results The relative standard deviations of the two methods were in good agreement with those of the two methods (r = 0.996, P <0.05). The relative standard deviation of the DPDD method was 2.6% and the recovery rate was (94.5 ± 2.8)%. The relative standard deviation of the HGAF method was 2.8%, the recovery rate was (100.0 ± 6.4)%, the difference was not statistically significant (P> 0.05). The test results of the two methods of quality control samples are within the allowable range, and the difference was not statistically significant (P> 0.05). Conclusion The method of DP-DD and HGAF for blood lead detection has high accuracy and good consistency, which can meet the requirements of blood lead detection. However, the HGAF method has the advantages of low cost, fast analysis speed, simple detection operation requirements, and suitable The need for rapid detection of grass-roots units.