Clinical Chemistry AACC Online Job Center
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 25: 389-393, 1979;
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Boone, J.
Right arrow Articles by Lewis, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Boone, J.
Right arrow Articles by Lewis, S.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 25, 389-393, Copyright © 1979 by American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Comparison of interlaboratory results for blood lead with results from a definitive method

J Boone, T Hearn and S Lewis

Results reported by 113 participants in the Blood Lead Proficiency Testing Program conducted by the Center for Disease Control were compared with those obtained by the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) with a definitive methods (mass spectroscopy-isotopic dilution) for blood lead analyses. Data were compiled from the results obtained for 12 whole-blood samples containing 1.5 g of disodium EDTA per liter. Twelve separate blood samples were obtained from cattle which had been given lead nitrate orally. Lead concentrations in the samples ranged from 0.628 to 4.93 mumol/L (130-1020 micrograms/L) as determined by NBS. The methods used by laboratories were classified according to six basic groups: anodic stripping voltametry; and atomic absorption spectroscopy in which either extraction, carbon rod, graphite furnace, tantalum strip, or Delves cup was used. For results obtained in each group a linear regression analyses of laboratory values was made on the basis of NBS values. In comparison to the definitive method, most field methods for blood lead tended to overestimate the lead concentration when the actual lead concentration was less than 1.96 mumol/L (400 micrograms/L) and to underestimate the lead concentration when the actual lead concentration was greater than 2.45 mumol/L (500 micrograms/L).


The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:


Home page
 Arch Pediatr Adolesc MedHome page
N. K. Jobanputra, R. Jones, G. Buckler, R. P. Cody, M. Gochfeld, T. M. Matte, D. Q. Rich, and G. G. Rhoads
Accuracy and Reproducibility of Blood Lead Testing in Commercial Laboratories
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, June 1, 1998; 152(6): 548 - 553.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum Exp ToxicolHome page
R.A. Braithwaite and S.S. Brown
Clinical and Sub-clinical Lead Poisoning: A Laboratory Perspective
Human and Experimental Toxicology, September 1, 1988; 7(5): 503 - 513.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum Exp ToxicolHome page
D.S. Ooi and S.L. Perkins
A Ceramic Glazer Presenting with Extremely High Lead Levels
Human and Experimental Toxicology, March 1, 1988; 7(2): 171 - 174.
[Abstract] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1979 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.