孕妇和新生儿碘缺乏病研究 Ⅰ.对硫酸铈法测定尿碘和计算方法的评价

Study on iodine defeciency in pregnant women and newborns. I evaluation at determinating urine iodine and calculating method to cerous sulfate contace test.

本文根据“ＷＨＯ与ＩＣＣＩＤＤ制定的碘缺乏病防治标准与方法”中硫酸铈还原反应测定尿碘的意图，采用３种方法和３种计算公式对具体操作进行选择，并对原标准对照计算法的不合理以及计算误差对评价尿碘水平的效能进行了探讨。结果表明：（１）方法Ⅰ存在仪器误差，准确度不佳。方法Ⅱ线性关系和准确度较理想，但操作不便计算麻烦。方法Ⅲ线性关系和准确度与方法Ⅱ无差异，操作和计算简便、节约试剂。（２）原标准对照计算法不符合催化褪色反应的速率方程，产生很大计算误差，准确度很低。（３）硫酸铈法测定尿碘时，其变量间是指数曲线关系；由速率方程导出的现标准对照计算法的准确度与标准曲线计算法无统计学差异。（４）用原标准对照计算法评价的群体尿碘水平只相当于标准曲线和现标准对照计算法的６４．１％和６３．４％。在３１２５例群体样品中，缺碘总人数被原计算方法的误差提高了１５．８％。

Three methods and 3 calculating formula were used to choose for concrete operation according to the idea at urine iodine assayed with cerous sulfate reducing reaction by which WHO and ICCIDD draw up the preventive and curative criteria of iodine deficiency. No rationalization of calculation comparing with the original standard and evaluating the efficacy of level of urine iodine with calculative error were discussed. The results have been shown that: (1) Instrument error exists in method Ⅰ and the degree of accuracy is not satifactory. It is good for linear relationship and accuracy to method Ⅱ, But the operation is not easy and the calculation is complex. There is no difference between linear relationship and accuracy of method Ⅲ and Ⅱ, and it is an easy calculation as well as operation for method Ⅲ. (2) The original criteria comparing with calculating method is not identical to the rate equation of catalytic decolorative reaction, occurs at quite great error in calculatioin. The accuracy is too low. (3) On assaying urine iodine with the contact method of cerous sulfate, the regression relationship between the variables is an exponential curve. There was no statistic difference between the accuracy of the current standard contrast calculation method led by rate equation of its own reaction and the accuracy of the standard curve calculation method. (4) The level of mass urine iodine evaluated by the original standard contrast calculation method is equal to the standard curve and the current contrast calculation method 64 1% and 63 4% respectively. Among the mass samples of 3125 cases, the error of the total number in iodine deficiency was higher than the original standard calculation method 15%. Hence, we consider that it is not true for having evaluated the level of uine iodine with this method in the past and suggest reevaluation by this method.