Evaluation of three first-generation ion-selective electrode analyzers for lithium: Systematic errors, frequency of random interferences, and recommendations based on comparison with flame atomic emission spectrometry

Anthony O. Okorodudu, Robert W. Burnett, Robert B. McComb, George N. Bowers

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

21 Scopus citations

Abstract

Ion-selective electrode analyzers for measuring lithium (Li/ ISE) in serum became available in early 1987. We compared results for patients' samples from three of them vs results from flame atomic emission spectrometry (FAES). Within-run and day-to-day imprecision ranged from 0.01 to 0.03 mmol/L and 0.01 to 0.04 mmol/L, respectively. Comparing Li/ISE results (y) with the FAES results (x) gave the following equations: y = 1.063x - 0.035 for AMDEV's Lytening 2, y = 1.020x + 0.038 for NOVA's Model 11, and y = 1.030x - 0.027 for AVL's Model 985. Unexplained positive errors >0.2 mmol/L were observed for two of the 90 patients' samples, but only a few additional excessively high values were seen in 3000 patients' samples run subsequently (Lytening 2). Causes of error in clinical Li/ISE measurements are still unclear; simply characterizing them as "matrix effects" does not correct the underlying analytical problem. An increase in pH from loss of CO2 gave low results on two of the three Li/ISE analyzers but did not change FAES results. Trimethylammonium bicarbonate used in a reconstitution solution caused extremely high Li/ISE results but did not change FAES results. Performance specifications to help reduce and correct these errors are recommended.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)104-110
Number of pages7
JournalClinical chemistry
Volume36
Issue number1
StatePublished - 1990
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Economics of laboratory operation
  • ISE liquid membranes
  • Lithium ionophores
  • Variation, source of
  • pH

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • General Medicine

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Evaluation of three first-generation ion-selective electrode analyzers for lithium: Systematic errors, frequency of random interferences, and recommendations based on comparison with flame atomic emission spectrometry'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this