CAJ | 학술논문

目的以碱灰化法作金标准,探讨氯酸消化法测定人乳汁含碘量的准确性.方法收集天津市河西区新鲜人乳汁样品61份,分别应用2008年发布的<食物中碘的测定砷铈催化分光光度法>中的碱灰化法和1999年发布的<尿碘的砷铈催化分光光度测定方法>中的氯酸消化法测定其含碘量.结果采用两种检测方法得到61对人乳汁含碘量数据,两种方法的测定结果呈高度正相关(r=0.960,t=26.3,P<O.01),其回归方程为(Y)=-28.1+0.808X(X为自变量,即碱灰化法测定结果;(Y)为因变量,即氯酸消化法测定的估计值);两种方法测定结果的平均差值为68.3μg/L,氯酸消化法要比碱灰化法平均低38.9%,经配对t检验,其差异具有统计学意K(t=11.3,P<0.01).乳汁样品稀释3、4、5倍后,经氯酸消化澄清率分别为80.3%(49/61)、95.1%(58/61)、100.0%(61/61).碱灰化法和氯酸消化法测定61份人乳汁含碘量,中位数分别为165.4、110.0μg/L.结论与碱灰化法比较,氯酸消化法测定结果明显偏低,提示该方法存在系统误差,不能代替碱灰化法.
목적 이감회화법작금표준,탐토록산소화법측정인유즙함전량적준학성.방법 수집천진시하서구신선인유즙양품61빈,분별응용2008년발포적<식물중전적측정신시최화분광광도법>중적감회화법화1999년발포적<뇨전적신시최화분광광도측정방법>중적록산소화법측정기함전량.결과 채용량충검측방법득도61대인유즙함전량수거,량충방법적측정결과정고도정상관(r=0.960,t=26.3,P<O.01),기회귀방정위(Y)=-28.1+0.808X(X위자변량,즉감회화법측정결과;(Y)위인변량,즉록산소화법측정적고계치);량충방법측정결과적평균차치위68.3μg/L,록산소화법요비감회화법평균저38.9%,경배대t검험,기차이구유통계학의K(t=11.3,P<0.01).유즙양품희석3、4、5배후,경록산소화징청솔분별위80.3%(49/61)、95.1%(58/61)、100.0%(61/61).감회화법화록산소화법측정61빈인유즙함전량,중위수분별위165.4、110.0μg/L.결론 여감회화법비교,록산소화법측정결과명현편저,제시해방법존재계통오차,불능대체감회화법.
Objective Take alkaline ashing method as golden standard to explore the accuracy of chloric acid digestion method in determination of human milk iodine. Methods Sixty one breast milk samples collected in Hexi district of Tianjin was measured by the method for determination of iodine in foodstuff by As3+-Ce4+ catalytic spectrophotometry (referred to as the alkaline ashing method) published in 2008 and the method for determination of iodine in urine by As3+-Ce4+ catalytic spectrophotometry(referred to as acid digestion) published in 1999, respectively. were highly correlated(r = 0.960, t = 26.3, P < 0.01), and the regression equation was (Y) = - 28.1 + 0.808X, in which X was independent variable, that is the results of alkaline ashing method; (Y) was dependent variable, that is the estimated data of chloric acid digestion method. The average difference of the results measured by the two methods was 68.3 μg/L, and the results from chloric acid digestion was 38.9% which lower than that of alkaline samples were diluted by 3,4 and 5-fold and then digested by chloric acid, the liquid clarification rates were 80.3% ashing and chloric acid digestion method were, respectively, 165.4, 110.0 μg/L. Conclusions Compared with alkaline ashing method, the results determined by chloric acid digestion method are significantly lower. It is suggested that there are systemic errors in chloric acid digestion method, which means that alkaline ashing method can not be replaced by the chloric acid digestion method.