Comparative evaluation of ultramicro—and macro-chemo enzyme based assays of glucose, cholesterol and triglycerides
- 27 Downloads
A comparison of the absorbance, enzyme/substrate concentration, reaction efficiency and sensitivity has been made for enzyme-based clinical chemistry assays, using a conventional colorimeter versus a strip-microwell reader, in order to establish the value of ultra-microchemical procedure, with reaction volume 87 μl (light path length=0.25 cm). By utilizing commercial kits available for the quantitation of serum glucose, cholesterol and triglycerides, it has been established that the micro method is highly cost effective (9–30 fold), reproducible and sensitive. Comparison of blood drawn by a finger prick (capillary) and venipuncture for normal and pathological specimens show reproducibility between different laboratory technologists and in reference with the values reported by an accredited reference laboratory. Since the micro method uses very little serum, it is most suitable for analyses of small smaples, from large population-based field trials. However, the assay range has to be titrated for each commercial kit to establish the enzyme/substrate equivalence.
Key wordsMicro-method Blood Chemistry Sensitive Assay Capillary-venous Blood Colorimetry
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.Presti, B., Kircher, T. and Reed, C. (1989) Capillary blood glucose monitor. Evaluation in a new born nursery. Clin. Pediatr. (Phila). 13, 412–415.Google Scholar
- 4.Gottschling, H.D., Reuter, W., Ronquist, G., Steinmetz, A. and Hattemer, A. (1995) Multicentre evaluation of a non-wipe system for the rapid determination of total cholesterol in capillary blood Accutrend Cholesterol on Accutrend GC. Eur. J. Clin. Chem. Clin. Biochem. 33, 373–381.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Grunert, C. and Wood, W.G. (1995) Comparison between the Bayer ELITE glucometer and hexokinase method for glucose determination on the Eppendorf EPOS 5060 using capillary whole blood samples. Eur. J. Clin. Chem. Clin. Biochem. 13, 153–156.Google Scholar