Clinical Chemistry Link to Randox Laboratories Web Site
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 21: 672-675, 1975;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an electronic Letter to
the Editor about this paper
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Roerig, D. L.
Right arrow Articles by Wang, R. I. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Roerig, D. L.
Right arrow Articles by Wang, R. I. H.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 21, 672-675, Copyright © 1975 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Comparison of Radioimmunoassay with Thin-Layer Chromatographic and Gas—Liquid Chromatographic Methods of Barbiturate Detection in Human Urine

David L. Roerig 1, Donna L. Lewand 1, Marilyn A. Mueller 1, and Richard I. H. Wang 1

1 Pharmacology Research Laboratory (151), Veterans Administration Center, Wood (Milwaukee), Wis. 53193; and the Department of Pharmacology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wis. 53233.

A radioimmunoassay (I) for barbiturates was compared with thin-layer chromatographic (II) and gas—liquid chromatographic (III) methods for barbiturate detection in human urine. Timed urine samples were obtained from volunteers who had ingested 100 mg of a barbiturate. I detected barbiturate in all urines tested up to 76 h after the dose, and III in all up to 52 h and in 90% up to 76 h. II detected barbiturates in 90% of all urine samples for only 30 h, after which its reliability declined. Glutethimide interfered with radioimmunoassay of barbiturate, producing false positives. I is sensitive, reliable, and fast, and lends itself to screening large numbers of urine samples for barbiturates. For routine urine surveillance, however, we found I to be less useful than II, which is still the method of choice. I has, however, proved to be an excellent method for confirming resuits of II.


Key Words: "kit" methods • screening • toxicology • inter-method comparison

Submitted on November 18, 1974
Accepted on February 3, 1975






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1975 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.