阳极溶出伏安法与石墨炉原子吸收光谱法在血铅检测中的应用比较

Comparison between anodic stripping voltammetry and graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrophotometry for blood lead analysis

目的比较评价阳极溶出伏安法与石墨炉原子吸收光谱法在血铅检测中的应用,评价2种方法的实用性和可靠性。方法分别运用2种方法对3种血液样品(牛血、大鼠血和人血)同时进行检测,检测结果采用统计学分析。结果阳极溶出伏安法和石墨炉原子吸收光谱法测定血铅的最低检测限分别为5.3μg/L和0.045μg/L;定量限分别为17.8μg/L和0.15μg/L。2种方法测定3种血液样品,结果经t检验,P>0.05,呈高度相关。结论石墨炉原子吸收光谱法灵敏度高于阳极溶出伏安法,2种方法检验结果呈高度相关;阳极溶出伏安法稳定性强,仪器设备价廉,操作简单,更适用于临床大批量样品的检验。

Objective To compare and evaluate anodic striping voltammetry （ASV） with graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrophotometry （GFAAS） for blood lead analysis.Methods These two methods were used to analyze same samples of three kinds of blood （cattle blood, rat blood ＆ human blood） at the same time. The practicability and reliability of the results were evaluated by the statistic analysis. Results Limits of detection （ LOD ） for ASV and GFAAS were 5.3μg/L and 0.045μg/L. Limits of quality （LOQ） were 17.8μg/L and 0. 15μg/L for ASV and GFAAS. The results that three kinds of blood samples were analyzed by these two methods were in high correlation after t test （ P 〉 0. 05 ）. Conclusion The data demonstrated that the ASV method could be in the complete conformity to GFAAS for different kinds of blood samples in lead analysis. The results showed that the sensibility of GFAAS was better than that of ASV, but the ASV showed a marked performance in stability, ease of operation and precision as well as GFAAS. GFAAS was suitable for the scientific research as ASV for a clinic.