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


     

Clinical Chemistry 34: 2253-2255, 1988;
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 Chappuis, P.
Right arrow Articles by Rousselet, F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Chappuis, P.
Right arrow Articles by Rousselet, F.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 34, 2253-2255, Copyright © 1988 by American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Analytical problems encountered in determining aluminum status from hair in controls and hemodialyzed patients

P Chappuis, L Duhaux, F Paolaggi, MC de Vernejoul and F Rousselet
Laboratoire de Biochimie, Hopital Lariboisiere, Paris, France.

The problems involved in evaluating aluminum concentrations in hair are reviewed, especially those concerning removal of contaminating metals, a critical factor. In the few published studies of Al concentrations in hair, acetone was usually used for its removal. Here, its use in the washing sequence was found to give less precise results and higher Al values than the use of isopropanol. With isopropanol, the whole analysis can be done in a single tube. We compared results with those in the literature. We found that the Al concentration in the hair of control subjects was not related to sex or hair color and that there was a highly significant (P less than 0.001) difference between values for control subjects and hemodialyzed patients: 126 (SD 58) nmol/g, n = 49, vs 226 (SD 104) nmol/g, n = 39, respectively.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1988 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.